BUSINESS BEFORE QUESTIONS

London Local Authorities and Transport for London (No. 2) Bill [Lords]

Consideration of Bill, as amended, opposed and deferred until Tuesday 2 July (Standing Order No. 20).

Hertfordshire County Council (Filming on Highways) Bill [Lords] (By order)

Second Reading opposed and deferred until Tuesday 2 July (Standing Order No. 20).

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

TREASURY

The Chancellor of the Exchequer was asked—

Bank Lending

Simon Danczuk: What recent assessment he has made of the effect on economic growth of the level of bank lending to businesses.

Mark Tami: What recent assessment he has made of the effect on economic growth of the level of bank lending to businesses.

George Osborne: The Government are committed to creating a banking system that supports the British economy, rather than being supported by it. Two months ago, the Government and the Bank of England extended the funding for lending scheme, with a particular focus on small business lending. Last week, the Office of Fair Trading announced its review into how to make that lending more competitive, and at the Mansion House, I announced a plan for taxpayer shareholdings in RBS and Lloyds that will return these banks fully to the private sector, get value for the taxpayer and support the economy.

Simon Danczuk: Last Monday, I met businesses at Greater Manchester chamber of commerce and heard how banks were often failing them, thereby having an adverse impact on business performance. Does the Chancellor accept that bank lending to businesses has fallen over the past year and that the Government’s funding for lending scheme has totally failed businesses in Greater Manchester and the United Kingdom?

George Osborne: Gross lending to businesses is up under the scheme, but I am happy to agree with the hon. Gentleman that there is an issue—let us be honest, there has been an issue since 2008-09—with the contraction of bank lending to businesses in our communities. That is why we are taking further steps in two respects. First, with the Bank of England, we are extending the scope of the funding for lending scheme. It has proved very effective at getting mortgage rates down, and now we need to reduce the rates for small businesses. Secondly, we are sorting out the Royal Bank of Scotland, which is the largest lender to small businesses in our country.

Mark Tami: The Government claim to have established a business investment bank. How is it doing, and how many businesses has it actually lent money to?

George Osborne: The business bank, which was established last year, is now making loans to the funds that will lend to small businesses, creating non-bank lending channels. [Interruption.] There was no business bank under the Labour Government. I will tell the House what we had instead: we had a socking great banking crash under the Labour Government, and the person sitting opposite, the shadow Chancellor, was City Minister when it happened. We are cleaning up the mess from one of the biggest financial crises in the country’s history by ensuring that it never happens again.

Peter Tapsell: May I say to my right hon. Friend that after a lifetime as a stockbroker and fund manager, my instinct, as bond yields rise all over the world, is that we are heading for another banking crisis that will certainly choke off the already inadequate lending of banks to small businesses? May I put on the record my dismay that he has not yet committed himself to the total separation of investment from commercial banks, which I have been urging on him ever since he became Chancellor? I am absolutely convinced that if we do not go back to something approaching Glass-Steagall, it will be an absolute disaster when the next banking crisis hits us.

George Osborne: Of course, I respect my right hon. Friend’s experience. A powerful argument has been made that we should completely separate and split up retail banks from investment banks. We asked John Vickers to convene a commission to look at this specific subject, and he came forward with proposals to ring-fence retail banking, as he thought that that would be a better approach. We also set up a cross-party parliamentary commission to consider the ring fence, and it thinks that the ring fence is the best approach. It made a specific recommendation that we should give the regulator the power to split up a bank that had refused to comply with the ring fence, and we are giving the regulator—[Interruption.] The shadow Chancellor shakes his head, but again not one of these things was done when he was City Minister. Let me say to him again, because he obviously does not understand, that we are giving the regulator a specific power to split retail from investment banking in a bank that is ignoring the ring fence. I think that that is the right way forward.

Andrew Tyrie: In the Treasury Committee this morning, the Governor of the Bank of England expressed considerable concern that unacceptable
	pressure had been brought to bear on the Prudential Regulation Authority from within Government, both from No. 10 and from No. 11, at the behest of the banks, putting at risk the regulator’s independence. Will the Chancellor reassure the House that he knew nothing about this, that he was not personally involved, that he will investigate the allegation that others did bring unacceptable pressure to bear, and that he will report to Parliament?

George Osborne: Of course, if there is unacceptable pressure, I absolutely say that that is not acceptable—if that is the right way to put it. The PRA, which we created, is completely independent and it has made its independent decisions on capital in our banks. We also have the Financial Policy Committee, which again is completely independent and able to make these recommendations. We empower our regulators to do their job. Of course, banks, consumer groups and anyone else can make their case, but this is ultimately an independent body, an independent regulator, that makes the judgment. That is the system we have created.

Catherine McKinnell: The whole House agrees that we need to see more lending to small businesses and a return of RBS and Lloyds to the private sector so that taxpayers can get their money back, yet two weeks since the Chancellor helped to remove Stephen Hester from RBS, the taxpayers’ stake in the bank has fallen in value by £4 billion. Was that part of the plan?

George Osborne: In case the hon. Lady had not noticed, stock markets around the world are down. Bank stocks are down—

Edward Balls: And RBS?

George Osborne: RBS: the world’s largest bail-out, under a Government who completely failed to regulate it. How dare the right hon. Gentleman have the audacity to come here and complain about the Royal Bank of Scotland? We are fixing the problems in the Royal Bank of Scotland. We are looking at the case for establishing a “bad bank”, which, as I said at the Mansion House, should have been done in 2008. We are going to fix the mess in the banking system that Labour left behind.

Andrea Leadsom: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on setting up the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards. Does he believe that implementing some of its recommendations will help banks to lend? Will he urge the Leader of the House to allocate time for a debate on this subject?

George Osborne: We will have plenty of time to debate the recommendations of the parliamentary commission, which I think has done an absolutely excellent job for the House, by the way. We will shortly have the Report stage of the Banking Bill, at which the Government will say how we intend to respond to those recommendations. If there is more work to be done on the drafting of specific amendments, those amendments can be tabled in the House of Lords and they will of course come back to the House of Commons as well. The whole purpose of the parliamentary commission was to enable
	us to get on with this. If we had created a public inquiry, as Labour recommended, it would only just be getting going now. Instead, Parliament has done what it is supposed to do, which is to investigate a problem and provide recommendations, and we are going to debate those recommendations here.

Pensions Triple Lock

Jason McCartney: What assessment he has made of the effect of the pensions triple lock on pensioners.

Danny Alexander: The triple lock means that the level of the full basic state pension is now £6.85 a week higher than it would have been if it had been uprated only by earnings since 2011-12. That equates to about £356 a year. The average person reaching state pension age in 2013 with a full basic state pension can expect to receive an additional £12,000 in basic state pension over their retirement, thanks to the triple lock.

Jason McCartney: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the triple lock will prevent a repeat of the disgraceful situation in which pensioners received a pension increase of only 75p?

Danny Alexander: I certainly can confirm that. Putting in a floor of a 2.5% increase in the basic state pension will prevent that disgraceful situation, and I can tell my hon. Friend that, thanks to the triple lock, the basic state pension now represents a higher share of average earnings than at any time since 1992.

Cathy Jamieson: Let me be clear that we on the Opposition Benches do support the triple lock on pensions. However, at a time when our NHS and social care are under such pressure, why do the Government think it is a priority to continue to pay the winter fuel allowance to the richest 5% of pensioners?

Danny Alexander: The hon. Lady says that Opposition Members support the triple lock, but they did not introduce it when they were in office. The shadow Chancellor wishes to include the basic state pension in his short-term cap of welfare spending. Let me tell the Labour party what that might mean. Last year, the welfare forecast increased by £2.3 billion; if the pension had been included in the welfare cap, as the shadow Chancellor suggests, it would have meant freezing the basic state pension this year, not increasing it as planned. That is what Labour really means on pensions. I am certainly willing to look at the payment of winter allowance to wealthy pensioners; I am sure it will be a matter to discuss at the next election.

Small Businesses

Sheryll Murray: What recent fiscal steps he has taken to support small businesses.

George Freeman: What recent fiscal steps he has taken to support small businesses.

George Osborne: Three years ago, I cut the small companies tax rate; this year, I have taken a number of further steps to support small businesses, including the new £2,000 employment allowance, which will reduce small businesses’ tax bill. Up to 1.25 million businesses will benefit, with about a third of all employers taken out of paying employer national insurance contributions altogether. We have also increased the annual investment allowance tenfold this year from £25,000 to £250,000. This directly helps small and medium-sized businesses looking to invest in the future.

Sheryll Murray: Small businesses in South East Cornwall welcome the measures that the Chancellor has already introduced. It has taken some of them to a position where they can expand, but they have been applying and waiting for grant funding for a considerable time. Will my right hon. Friend speak to his Cabinet colleagues to ensure that decisions are taken as soon as possible to allow these businesses to grow and to avoid missed opportunities?

George Osborne: I thank my hon. Friend for her work on the Finance Bill, which she put huge effort into. I know she is passionate about her constituents and the businesses of Cornwall. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has already given £7 million in rural development grants to her constituency. She has raised some specific cases; a company that makes Cornish Blue has been waiting for what I think is an unacceptable period for an answer from another Government Department about a grant. I will personally look into this matter and see if we can speed the award.

George Freeman: In the £50 billion UK life science industry, the Chancellor’s support for the patent box, the research and development tax credits and a globally competitive corporation tax rate are helping to secure global companies here, as evidenced by Johnson & Johnson’s recent announcement of a global innovation centre here in the UK. Does he also agree that we need to support insurgent small and medium-sized enterprises emerging into the sector? I would like to highlight the role of the biomedical catalyst fund in securing over 50 projects for the UK and £1 billion in venture capital funding.

George Osborne: My hon. Friend’s knowledge in this area is well known, and he has applied it as a Member of Parliament to promoting schemes that help the life sciences industry—and not just the big companies, although we welcome the Johnson & Johnson announcement, but the small companies, too. The biomedical catalyst fund has been very successful at supporting small businesses in this sector. Without giving too much away about tomorrow’s announcements, I can tell him that we will go on funding this scheme.

Bill Esterson: Can the Chancellor tell us how many firms have been helped by his small firms national insurance holiday since it started three years ago, given that he claimed it would help 400,000 firms?

George Osborne: About 20,000 firms have been helped—[Interruption.] Well, 20,000 firms have been helped, small business creation is at the highest level since the
	1980s and there are over 1 million new jobs in the private sector. And we will bring before Parliament new legislation to make sure that the first few thousand pounds of their national insurance bill is completely wiped out—they will not have to pay it at all. That is a real success story, and if the Opposition want to vote against it, they can be my guest.

Margaret Ritchie: Finance and credit are the lifeblood of small businesses. The Government have been pumping money into the banking sector, so what is the Chancellor doing to ensure that that money goes to small businesses rather than to repair bank balance sheets?

George Osborne: Of course, as we discussed earlier, the capital position of the banks is important, but the funding for lending scheme is now focused on small business lending. I know that there is a particular issue with the very tough situation that the banking sector faces in Northern Ireland and the problems from the Irish Republic that have spilled over into Northern Ireland. One thing we are doing with the Royal Bank of Scotland is looking specifically at Ulster and the issues surrounding some of the bad loans made in the past, and at how we can help that bank to make good loans in the future to help the businesses of Northern Ireland. We are specifically supporting the Northern Irish economy and we are aware of its problems.

David Amess: Does my right hon. Friend agree that extending rate relief to a further half a million small businesses will help many of them in the constituencies of Southend West and Rochford and Southend East?

George Osborne: Small business rate relief has helped many small firms to cope with the cost of rates, and we have been able to extend it year after year. We will have to make a decision later in this Parliament about a further extension, but there is clear evidence that the current extension is doing a great deal of good.

Anas Sarwar: The main complaint from businesses throughout the country, both small and large, is that they do not feel they are receiving the support that they need from the banking sector. Given that state-owned banks are among the poorest in terms of lending, what is Jeffrey—sorry, the Chancellor of the Exchequer—doing about it?

George Osborne: As I said earlier, the Royal Bank of Scotland is the largest lender to small businesses in our country. That is why it is such an important support for the economy. We are taking a serious look at how we can enable it to move on from all the bad loans—all the bad bets that it laid—during the middle years of the last decade, when, by the way, the shadow Chancellor, who is still muttering from a sedentary position, was City Minister.
	Surely it is in all our interests to try to sort out the banking problem, but I have no idea whether Labour Members support our proposal on the Royal Bank of Scotland. We have heard absolutely nothing from them. However, what we are doing shows that we are actually confronting the problems that we inherited.

Living Costs (Personal Allowance)

John Howell: What assessment he has made of the effect on living costs of changes to the personal allowance.

David Gauke: It was announced in Budget 2013 that the Government would increase the annual personal allowance by a further £560 to £10,000 in April 2014, thus meeting a key coalition commitment a year ahead of schedule. By that date, as a result of the combined effects of all personal allowance increases under this Government, a typical basic-rate taxpayer will have gained by more than £700 a year in cash terms.

John Howell: Does my hon. Friend agree that the best way of tackling this issue is to put cash into people’s pockets, and that taking 2.7 million people out of tax altogether is an excellent way in which to proceed?

David Gauke: I do agree. What we have done is quite a contrast with what was done by the last Government, who increased the amount of income tax that some low earners would have to pay by £232. Now the equivalents of those people have been taken out of income tax altogether.

Kevin Brennan: If everything is better for the average family, why did the Institute for Fiscal Studies say that the average family was £891 worse off? Was the IFS wrong?

David Gauke: We do not accept those figures. What I will say is that we have been prepared to tackle the biggest deficit in our peacetime history. We have taken measures to put the public finances back on a sustainable footing, with no help from the Labour party, which has opposed every measure that we have taken to do that.

Robert Halfon: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Government have taken 3,000 low-income people out of tax altogether in my constituency, and have cut taxes for 40,000 low-income residents? Is this not a Government who are on the side of the poor?

David Gauke: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He could have added—and I am surprised that he did not do so—that we have taken action on fuel duty as well.

Alison McGovern: Money in people’s pockets is one thing, but since the financial crash, food prices have increased by 18% compared with inflation of 13%. It is not just a question of the money in people’s pockets; it is also a question of what they have to pay when they go to the shops. Does the Minister really believe that families in my constituency feel that they are better off?

David Gauke: It is because of the need to deal with the cost of living that we have taken measures such as controlling increases in council tax. That is why fuel duty is lower than it was in the plans that we inherited, and why we have taken the measures that we have taken in regard to the personal allowance. [Interruption.] The shadow Chancellor is muttering about VAT. Let us be clear about this. Labour Members did not vote against
	VAT; then they said they were against VAT. Last week they said that they would not change VAT; now the shadow Chancellor is complaining about VAT. It is just chaos and confusion from the Labour party.

Infrastructure Investment

Mark Menzies: What recent steps he has taken to increase the level of infrastructure investment.

Danny Alexander: In a difficult economic climate the Government are committed to investing in infrastructure. We have increased our infrastructure spending plans in this Parliament and have committed to a further £3 billion a year from 2015-16. We are using this country’s hard-won fiscal credibility to support and offer up to £40 billion in guarantees for infrastructure projects, and I will set out our plans for further investment in infrastructure on Thursday.

Mark Menzies: As an MP for the north-west, may I ask whether the Government can give assurances to the House that large-scale infrastructure projects such as HS2 will proceed under this Government?

Danny Alexander: Yes I can, and the House will be considering High Speed 2 tomorrow. I hope my hon. Friend and other Members on both sides of the House will give the project very strong support, because it is a massive project that has the capacity completely to transform the regional economic geography of this country. This Government are totally committed to delivering it, and we will do so.

Geoffrey Robinson: Can the Chief Secretary confirm that only seven of the Treasury’s infrastructure projects in the pipeline have been completed? In view of its overall conversion finally to the need for infrastructure investment, is that not a disgraceful record?

Danny Alexander: I do not accept that figure, and I tell the hon. Gentleman a very large number of projects are completed or under way that we have announced. There are national road schemes, motorway schemes around the country, local transport schemes around the country, Crossrail under way—tunnelling started in May 2012—and major improvements to over 134 railway stations since May 2010. There is a great deal of investment in infrastructure going on, and he should welcome it.

Alun Cairns: Ahead of tomorrow’s comprehensive spending review, can I make yet another plea about the importance of the M4 around Newport? It is the gateway to the south Wales economy and it needs to be upgraded. That is long overdue; it was ignored by the last Government for so many years.

Danny Alexander: Let me reassure my hon. Friend that I am very well aware of the importance of that project. We have been in discussions with the Welsh Assembly Government about the matter, and it is very much tied up with the Silk report, and together those two things will help that project go forward.

John Woodcock: Why have 80% of the projects in the Treasury’s infrastructure pipeline not even started construction yet?

Danny Alexander: A vast number of projects are under way, and a vast number of projects are in the pipeline to start, where work and planning permission are going on. These projects are being delivered up and down the country, and I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that he should show a little humility in this matter. After all, this Government are investing a greater share of our nation’s income in infrastructure during this Parliament than his party managed during its 13 years in office.

Stephen Williams: I look forward to my right hon. Friend’s announcements about infrastructure on Thursday, but already on my weekly journeys from Bristol Temple Meads to London Paddington I can see the gantries going up around Reading to provide the electrification of the great western main line. Is it not the case that this Government are already presiding over the greatest investment in railways since the Victorian era, providing a stimulus to the economy in Bristol and all stations between there and London?

Danny Alexander: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and rather than laughing, the shadow Chancellor should welcome the fact that there is the largest investment in our railways since Victorian times. Electrification is under way, ahead of schedule as my hon. Friend suggests; the intercity express programme train purchase programme will help to improve journey times yet further; what was in our announcements in the autumn statement last year will allow direct western rail access to Heathrow from his constituency and other communities served by that line.

Christopher Leslie: If it is all so wonderful, can the Chief Secretary explain why, two years after he published the national infrastructure plan, according to the Office for National Statistics the level of infrastructure investment in our economy has plummeted by a staggering 50% in the first quarter of this year, its lowest level since he came to office? Why?

Danny Alexander: The hon. Gentleman should remember that the capital investment we are putting into infrastructure in this economy is much greater than in the plans his party set out before the last election. As the former Foreign Secretary said, Labour was going to halve the share of national income going into capital spending. We have added to that, and by using the fiscal credibility that this Government’s tough approach to the deficit has secured to offer infrastructure guarantees, we are enabling infrastructure projects in the private sector to come forward that would not be doing so otherwise.

Christopher Leslie: What planet is the Chief Secretary living on? A year ago, the director general of the CBI was asking:
	“Where are the diggers on the ground?”
	A year later, the diggers are still gathering dust. I realise that the Chief Secretary and the Chancellor are busy focusing on headlines for the next general election,
	two years away, but why are they not taking the advice of the International Monetary Fund and bringing forward capital investment now, in 2013, to make up for their lamentable incompetence on this infrastructure plan?

Danny Alexander: We are investing more in infrastructure this year than the hon. Gentleman’s party planned during its period in government. We are supporting the private sector to bring forward further investment in infrastructure, thanks to our infrastructure guarantee programme. We are supporting the construction of more affordable homes than his party managed; after all, his party presided over a decline of 421,000 affordable homes in this country. We are increasing investment in that. He should welcome this Government’s infrastructure programme, not criticise it from the position of weakness that he is in.

Job Creation

Laura Sandys: What fiscal steps he is taking to encourage job creation in the private sector.

Simon Wright: How many jobs have been created in the private sector since 2010.

David Gauke: Private sector employment has been growing robustly, with 1.3 million jobs created in the sector since the start of 2010. At Budget 2013, we announced the £2,000 employment allowance, which will support businesses aspiring to grow by hiring their first employee or expanding their work force. Businesses will be able to employ four adults or 10 18 to 20-year-olds full time on the national minimum wage without paying any employer national insurance contributions at all.

Laura Sandys: Does my hon. Friend agree that the combination of an enterprise zone and a regional growth fund that has been supporting jobs in my area following the Pfizer closure, and which the Chancellor very kindly opened, has delivered 750 new jobs in one year? We hope to be announcing a further 200 jobs in the next couple of weeks. Does that sound like a private sector success?

David Gauke: It certainly does, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the work that she has done for her constituency. Discovery Park is proving to be a success, with help from the regional growth fund and as an enterprise zone—and long may that success continue.

Simon Wright: The 2010 autumn statement confirmed the dualling of the A11, raising investor confidence in Norwich as a destination for growth. May I urge Treasury Ministers to be similarly bold in their spending review in relation to the A47, where investment has the potential to create up to 10,000 more jobs for the region?

David Gauke: I am grateful for that question, and I am sure that my hon. Friend will be listening attentively to any announcements made later on in the week. His constituency is another example of where private sector growth has been very strong, reflecting the national pattern.

Jim Cunningham: How many jobs will high-speed rail create?

David Gauke: Over time, tens of thousands.

Gregory Campbell: Following the success of last week’s G8 summit, Northern Ireland is now looking forward to the international investment conference in October. Will the Treasury work closely with the Prime Minister and the Northern Ireland Executive to ensure that we maximise private sector investment in Northern Ireland, both in 2013 and 2014?

David Gauke: Yes, absolutely. There needs to be a much stronger private sector in Northern Ireland, as has been accepted by this Government and by all the parties in Northern Ireland.

Public Sector Debt

Stephen McCabe: What his Department’s estimate is of the likely level of public sector net debt as a share of GDP in 2015-16.

Greg Clark: Public sector net debt is forecast to be 85% of GDP in 2015-16, compared with 94% of GDP and accelerating had the policies of the previous Government continued to be pursued.

Stephen McCabe: Let us hope that that estimate proves more reliable than previous efforts. In the interests of transparency, and given tomorrow’s comprehensive spending review, is the Minister now ready to admit that the national debt has risen from £828.7 billion to £1.19 trillion under his watch? If we eliminate the Royal Mail pension fund, as we have been advised to do, and the Bank of England gilts from quantitative easing, is it not true that borrowing in 2012-13 is up, and not down as the Chancellor told this Chamber?

Greg Clark: Like you, Mr Speaker, I take a great interest in the hon. Gentleman’s speeches in this House, and I know that he is deeply interested in fiscal policy. Since the beginning of the year, he has spoken 102 times on the subject of public spending cuts, but in each and every intervention he has opposed spending cuts. To cut the debt, we have to cut spending. He should learn that, and the Labour party should as well.

John Stevenson: Does the Minister agree that one reason why our debt is such an issue is that the previous Government ran budget deficits in the good times as well as the bad and that the only way to reduce debt is to get the deficit down?

Greg Clark: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We know that between 2001 and the time they left office, the previous Government trebled the national debt, yet when the shadow Chancellor was asked whether they were too profligate and had too much national debt, he said no. Labour’s new policy is the old policy: more spending, more borrowing, more debt. It is time they learned.

Chris Williamson: The Prime Minister assured us that by 2015 the books would be balanced. Is it not a fact that as a consequence of the Chancellor’s abject economic failure we are now looking at the deficit reaching £96 billion by 2015? What does the Financial Secretary have to say about that?

Greg Clark: I have followed the hon. Gentleman’s interventions over time and he should be familiar, as we all are, with the study from the Institute for Fiscal Studies that made it very clear that if the policies of his party had continued, the debt would be £200 billion higher.

Julian Brazier: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if we look across the channel to countries such as Italy, we see what can easily happen if a Government lose control of public spending?

Hon. Members: That is not across the channel.

Greg Clark: The channel is not very far from my hon. Friend’s constituency, so it is possible to look across. He will know that the UK cut its structural deficit by more than any other G7 country over the past three years, whereas Labour racked up the largest structural deficit in the G7. The shadow Chancellor confirmed on Sunday that he would borrow more money in 2013, 2014 and 2015. Labour says it has a new policy, but it is the old policy—to borrow more and to go further into debt.

Housing Market (Budget 2013)

Andrew George: What progress he has made on implementing the housing market measures announced in Budget 2013.

Sajid Javid: The Government have made excellent progress in implementing the measures. For example, the Help to Buy equity loan scheme has helped 4,000 individuals and families reserve a new build home already and the Help to Buy mortgage guarantee scheme will be in place by January 2014.

Andrew George: In high house price and low wage areas such as mine, where four times more properties are sold to second home buyers than to first-time buyers, intermediate market solutions—shared equity and affordable homes with section 106 planning restrictions—are often the only way for local families to get a toe on the housing ladder, yet the equity loan scheme does not have the rules to enable them to take advantage of it. Will the Government reconsider the rules to help local people in such circumstances?

Sajid Javid: My hon. Friend is right to raise that issue. He will have upmost in his mind the fact that under Labour, house building fell to its lowest levels since the 1920s. The Government are supporting hard-working households who have saved but who do not have a large deposit from the bank of mum and dad to help in buying their own home. The Help to Buy equity loan scheme he mentioned will help 74,000 families and has already helped 4,000. My hon. Friend will be pleased
	to know that 20% of the £1.8 billion of additional funding we have promised for affordable homes will go to shared ownership.

John Cryer: Will the Help to Buy scheme help to increase the supply of housing? I am not talking about buying capacity; will it specifically increase the supply of housing?

Sajid Javid: The short answer is that it most certainly will, and it has been welcomed by the Home Builders Federation. I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman is now concerned about the issue. House building fell to its lowest levels since the 1920s under the previous Government. The number of affordable homes decreased by 421,000 over 13 years and local authority waiting lists almost doubled from 1 million to 1.8 million under Labour—a shameful record.

Average Earnings

Ian Mearns: What recent estimate he has made of the rate of increase of average earnings compared to the rate of consumer price inflation.

Sajid Javid: The best way to deal with today’s cost of living challenges is to have paid employment. In 2012, the number of people employed in the UK has risen faster than most of our competitors, including the US, France, Germany and Japan. As a result, household income has risen by 2.1% more than consumer prices over the past year.

Ian Mearns: Despite what the Minister has just said, the Office for Budget Responsibility says that living standards for many will be lower in 2015 than they were in 2010. Is it not the case that, while the rich and super-rich benefit from tax cuts, working people and their families are worse off? Is not the truth that we are not all in it together?

Sajid Javid: No, certainly not. I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman is concerned about this issue. The hon. Gentleman became a Member of Parliament in 2010, and he will know that in the last term of the stewardship of the previous Government, his constituency saw paid employment fall, and unemployment rise by a staggering 67%. Paid employment is the best way to raise living standards, and 1.3 million new private sector jobs have been created in the past three years. More people are in employment than at any other time in the history of this country.

Nadhim Zahawi: On living costs and standards, can my hon. Friend tell me how much more my constituents would have to pay to fill a tank with petrol if we had adopted the previous Government’s fuel price rises?

Sajid Javid: My hon. Friend highlights an important point. We scrapped Labour’s fuel duty escalator; we have frozen their escalator. Petrol prices are 13p per litre lower than if he we had kept the policies of the previous Government.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Does the Minister see any correlation between wages being £1,300 a year less than they were at the time of the election and the number of people who are in work turning up at food banks?

Sajid Javid: What I see is jobs being created in the private sector at a record rate in this country—1.3 million jobs in the past three years; a faster rate of job creation than any other G7 country last year. If the hon. Gentleman really cared about his constituents, he would welcome that.

Charlie Elphicke: What has the effect been of Government policies not just on petrol but on keeping interest rates low, freezing council tax, cutting income tax and helping pensioners?

Sajid Javid: My hon. Friend has raised the issue of interest rates. If we had not had a credible policy to deal with the record budget deficit that the previous Government left behind, interest rates would be a lot higher. In fact, in the last Budget delivered by them, interest payments on Government debt would have been £30 billion higher in this Parliament. If interest rates were just 1% higher, mortgages would rise by almost £1,000 a year for the average household.

Community Budgets

John Pugh: What assessment he has made of the role of community budgets in improving the efficiency of public expenditure; and if he will make a statement.

Danny Alexander: I am a strong supporter of community budgets because, by joining up public services locally, we can save money and get better outcomes for our constituents. The troubled families programme is using the community budgets approach to turn around the lives of 120,000 families by 2015. Building on its success, I announced yesterday that the Government would put £200 million towards expanding the programme to work with a further 400,000 families from 2015.

John Pugh: Ernst and Young estimates that between £9 billion and £20 billion can be saved by the national roll-out of community budgets. Given that the pressure is on us, should that roll-out be sooner rather than later?

Danny Alexander: Yes, it certainly should, and I urge my hon. Friend to listen carefully to the Chancellor’s statement tomorrow.

Mr Speaker: I call Pamela Nash. Not here.

Child Benefit (Higher Earners)

Richard Graham: What progress he has made on his policy to withdraw child benefit payments from higher earners.

David Gauke: In January 2013 a new income tax charge was introduced to reduce or remove the financial benefit of receiving child benefit for those on high incomes. For taxpayers with incomes between £50,000 and £60,000, the amount of the charge is a proportion of the child benefit received. For taxpayers with income above £60,000, the amount of the charge is equal to the amount of child benefit received. Eighty-five per cent. of families with children continue to benefit in full from child benefit. Entitlement to child benefit payments remains universal and will continue to be paid to all those who claim it.

Richard Graham: I am delighted to hear about the savings that will be achieved, especially given that those of us who supported them were told by the Labour party that they would destroy the universal principle, and that they were complicated, unfair and unworkable. It now appears that they are workable, and the Opposition have accepted that they will not change the policy. Will my hon. Friend share with us what vital provision of services those savings can achieve, and will he also consider means-testing the winter fuel allowance?

David Gauke: There is a substantial saving to the Exchequer through child benefit. It was not that long ago when the Leader of the Opposition said that millionaires should receive child benefit because
	“it’s a cornerstone of our system to have universal benefits”.
	It appears that that is no longer the case, although all we have is briefing. On winter fuel payments, the Prime Minister made it clear that they would continue in the course of this Parliament and we will fulfil that commitment.

Topical Questions

Simon Danczuk: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

George Osborne: The core purpose of the Treasury is to ensure the stability and prosperity of the economy.

Simon Danczuk: In his March Budget, the Chancellor boasted that Government borrowing fell last year. Will he confirm that figures published by the Office for National Statistics on Friday show that Government borrowing last year actually did not go down, but went up?

George Osborne: The Office for National Statistics revised down borrowing for 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2013-14; that is actually good news.

Andrew Jones: The quality of schools in my constituency is very high. Will my right hon. Friend outline the Government’s intentions on school funding?

George Osborne: Everyone knows that Britain needs to live within its means, and tomorrow I shall set out the next phase of the economic plan to move Britain from rescue to recovery. However, I can confirm that we will offer real protection for our national health service and our schools. Those vital public services are an investment in our economic future, and they are all about doing what we need to do to win that global race.

Edward Balls: The whole House will have heard the Chancellor not answer the topical question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk). The reason is that, despite all the Budget speech bluster, borrowing last year went not down, but up.
	Let me ask the Chancellor another question. The bonuses paid in the financial services sector this April, the first month of the new tax year, were 65% higher than in the same month last year—up by a total of £1.3 billion. Can the Chancellor tell the House why bank bonuses rose by £1.3 billion this April?

George Osborne: First, on borrowing, the Labour Government were borrowing £157 billion a year. This Government borrowed £118 billion last year, which represents a fall in borrowing. The deficit is down by a third because we are taking the tough decisions to ensure that Britain lives within its means. On bonuses, they are 85% lower than when the right hon. Gentleman was City Minister.

Edward Balls: The fact is that the Chancellor promised to get the deficit down, but it is rising, and that month-on-month rise in bonuses is the highest since records began in 2000. There is a simple reason why that happened: thousands of very highly paid people deferred their bonuses into the new tax year to take advantage of the Chancellor’s top rate tax cut, which has cost the Exchequer millions of pounds in lost tax revenue. How can the Chancellor still say, “We’re all in this together,” when living standards are falling for everyone else and the economy has flatlined for three years? Is not this economic failure the reason why the Chancellor will not balance the books in 2015 and why he will be coming back to the House tomorrow to ask for more cuts to public services? He is unfair and out of touch, and he is now revealed as totally incompetent.

George Osborne: Getting a lesson from the shadow Chancellor on how to balance the books is like getting a lesson from Dracula on how to look after a blood bank. He finds himself in a most extraordinary situation. On Saturday, the Labour leader said that Labour was going to rule out borrowing more. On Sunday, when the shadow Chancellor was asked whether Labour could borrow more, he said, “Yes, yes, of course,” and then, on Monday, the Labour party committed itself to higher welfare spending—it is a complete shambles. On the eve of the spending review, Labour finds itself in the extraordinary situation in which it has completely abandoned the economic argument that it has been making for the past three years, but kept the disastrous economic policy. That is a hopeless position. The shadow Chancellor has led Labour Members up a cul-de-sac and they have to find their way out of it.

Chris White: In the last Budget the Chancellor announced a video games tax relief to help support UK publishers and developers, which was a very welcome step. However, the European Commission has launched an investigation into this tax relief. Will my right hon. Friend join me and industry representatives such as TIGA so that we may make the best case possible for this vital policy?

David Gauke: We remain committed to introducing video games tax relief as soon as possible and we are working with the industry to provide the Commission with the evidence that it needs to conclude its investigation quickly. These things can take a little time, but we have a history of succeeding in implementing new and innovative forms of state aid.

Iain McKenzie: Since the Chancellor’s last spending review the US economy has grown four times faster than the UK’s. Is this not further evidence of the Chancellor’s failed policies?

George Osborne: The US fiscal consolidation is faster this year than the UK consolidation. The structural deficit in the UK has fallen by more than in the US. But look at the UK—we have created over a million new jobs in the private sector. That is one of the most impressive employment records anywhere in the world.

Glyn Davies: Devolution is a continuing process. Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the National Assembly for Wales is to develop into a fiscally responsible governing institution, it must have responsibility for raising a significant part of its own budget?

Danny Alexander: I do agree with that. The Government established the Commission on Devolution in Wales to consider, as part of its remit, how to increase the fiscal accountability and autonomy of the Welsh Assembly Government. We are carefully considering the commission’s recommendations and we will respond in due course, having discussed the matter with the Welsh Assembly Government.

Gregg McClymont: May I take the Chancellor back to the question posed by the shadow Chancellor and by my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk)? Did Government borrowing rise in 2012-13, as compared to 2011-12?

George Osborne: Figures from the Office for National Statistics show that the deficit fell from 7.8% to 7.7%, so it came down.

Priti Patel: In the light of the Chancellor’s assiduous commitment to deficit reduction, what assessment has my right hon. Friend made of the Opposition’s spending plans, which appear to consist of more borrowing, more debt and a return to Labour’s failed policy of boom and bust?

George Osborne: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. The Chancellor is not responsible for Labour policy. A very short one-sentence reply will suffice, then we must move on. Members must ask questions that are orderly, not disorderly.

George Osborne: My short answer is thank God I am not responsible for Opposition policy.

Andrew Gwynne: Why does the Office for Budget Responsibility say that the deficit this year will be the same as it was last year and the year before? Is not the truth that the Government’s stalled plan on jobs and growth has led to this appalling situation?

George Osborne: Let me tell the hon. Gentleman the appalling situation. It was an 11% budget deficit that the Opposition left us when they left office—11%. It is now going to be 7.7%. Borrowing—[Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls) asks how much money. I will tell him. The Opposition were borrowing £157 billion. We are now borrowing £118 billion. Borrowing is not going up. It came down from £157 billion to £118 billion, and if the right hon. Gentleman cannot do that maths, no wonder he left the country in such a mess.

David Ruffley: The A14 Cambridge toll road is strategically vital for the golden economic triangle that is Cambridge, Norwich and Ipswich—

Bob Russell: Colchester.

David Ruffley: And indeed Colchester. Can my right hon. Friend the Chancellor confirm that he will have that at the forefront of his mind when the Treasury makes its capital allocations?

George Osborne: The A14 is a strategically important road, not just for my hon. Friend’s constituents, but for the whole country. It links ports to many of our largest cities. It is at the forefront of our mind. My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary will set out on Thursday not just the capital plans for 2015-16, important as they are, but our long-term plans for road investment. Central to that is making sure that Britain has the economic infrastructure that we need to succeed in the modern world, and the A14 is part of that infrastructure.

Paul Goggins: The Chancellor must be concerned about the spiralling costs of air travel, with fares currently up by 22%. Does he agree that we need to increase competition by making better use of spare capacity at regional airports? To that end, will he agree to look again at reforming air passenger duty in order to promote growth at airports such as Manchester airport?

George Osborne: The right hon. Gentleman and I represent both ends of the runway at Manchester airport and know how important it is to our constituents and to economic growth in the north-west. We looked specifically at whether to split APD into a tax for hub airports and a tax for regional airports, but we ruled that out because we do not think that it would be fair. We have stuck with the APD rates we inherited from the previous Government. With regard to the campaign being run on the subject, it is important to recognise that airlines often refer to charges and taxes, and many of the charges are those, such as fuel charges, that they have chosen to put on. I understand the argument, because we have collectively—it was the previous Government’s decision—taken a tough decision on APD rates, but I think that people should read the small print of the campaign.

Brooks Newmark: Does my right hon. Friend share my concern that, notwithstanding the Alice in Wonderland economic world of the shadow Chancellor, a plan to borrow more will not actually bring borrowing down?

George Osborne: I completely agree that Labour’s plan to borrow more to borrow less is completely nonsensical. It really is extraordinary that a day after the Labour leader said that Labour had ruled out borrowing more, the shadow Chancellor committed the party to doing just that. It is a catastrophic position for his party to hold. Frankly, I do not think that the country will ever adopt it.

Pat McFadden: Given that the Chancellor appears unwilling to give us the answer that dare not speak its name on last year’s borrowing, I will ask him about the time available to debate the recommendations of the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards. A number of those recommendations require legislation before they can be given effect. The Government have allocated only one day on Report for the banking Bill. Although I respect their lordships, surely it should be the elected House that is given a chance to debate the recommendations. Will he reconsider and allow two days on Report?

George Osborne: First, I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his contribution to the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards, along with all Members of this House and the other House who took part in it. The very fact that the Commission has done its work speedily means that we can consider its recommendations for the banking Bill going before Parliament. Of course, allocation of time is a matter for the Leader of the House to make clear in his statement. The right hon. Gentleman has my commitment that over the course of the Bill’s scrutiny—it will go to the Lords and then come back to the Commons—there will be proper time to consider all the Commission’s recommendations and, if necessary, for the Government to draft changes in order to implement them. It is a parliamentary commission, which is what I wanted it to be, and it is of course right that Parliament should consider its report in detail.

Douglas Carswell: In 2007, 50% of UK gilts were purchased by insurance companies and pension funds. Last year the figure had fallen to 22%, the lion’s share of UK gilts now being bought by the Bank of England. Does my right hon. Friend share my concern that we are funding public sector overspend by having one branch of the state write out IOUs for another? Can that be sustained?

George Osborne: The arrangements for quantitative easing are well established, and the decisions on whether to increase asset purchases are within the envelope that I set for the independent Monetary Policy Committee. I think that an active monetary policy has helped sustain demand over the past few years. It is anchored in a credible fiscal policy, the next stage of which we will set out tomorrow.

Stewart Hosie: It is six months since the Banking Commission’s first report warned against a delay in ring-fencing, so it is disappointing that the ring-fencing of the banks might not be fully
	implemented until 2019. Can the Chancellor give one guarantee today—that the markets division of RBS, and comparable departments in other large banks, will be outside the retail ring fence and not liable to taxpayer assistance when the new rules are in place?

George Osborne: First, the timetable is one that John Vickers and his commission themselves proposed. Secondly, it is not for me to make individual decisions about individual banks; that is for the boards of those banks and, of course, the regulator. But the whole purpose is to insulate the retail bank from things that go wrong in the investment bank and, above all, to make it possible for the person doing my job to be able to resolve the retail bank and keep the retail operations going without having to bail out the investment banking arm. Indeed, that whole problem of “too big to fail” is something we need to deal with.

Bob Russell: It is the Government’s policy that, to cover cutting the Army to its smallest size since the battle of Waterloo, people should be encouraged to join the reserves. Leading by example, will the Chancellor of the Exchequer say how many members of his staff have joined the Territorial Army since January this year?

Sajid Javid: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the answer is none. He is passionate about the issue, which he has raised before. I can also confirm that the Treasury implements the policy of the Government—to make sure that all reservists who request a 10-day special leave on a paid basis get it.

Stephen Timms: On infrastructure investment, there is widespread disquiet—including in the National Audit Office, it seems—about the management of the Government’s broadband investment programme. Does the Chancellor agree that it is essential to harness competition effectively in delivering infrastructure investment?

Danny Alexander: Our programme of investment in rural broadband is being delivered in every part of the United Kingdom, and it is on track for delivery. We continue to look at the capability of Government Departments to deliver infrastructure projects effectively. My noble Friend the Commercial Secretary to the Treasury has been undertaking a review of these matters and will set out the conclusions shortly.

Penny Mordaunt: This morning, it was Labour party policy to cut pensions to spend more on welfare. We have just heard that the party now supports the triple lock. Is the Chancellor optimistic that by tea time it might support our policy on controlled welfare spending? [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: The hon. Lady was very difficult to hear because there was so much noise from the Opposition Benches, but fewer than 10 minutes ago I stressed that questions should be about the policies of the Government, not the Opposition. It is a pity to finish on a bad note, but Members really ought to establish the right habit early in their parliamentary careers. We will, I am afraid, have to leave it there. This is a box office occasion, and demand tends to exceed supply.

Points of Order

Edward Balls: rose—

Mr Speaker: Mr Balls, I can always see and hear you. Fear not: your point of order will now be heard.

Edward Balls: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The figures produced on Friday by the independent Office for National Statistics show that borrowing rose from £118.5 billion in 2011-12 up to £118.7 billion in 2012-13. Is there a danger that the Chancellor may have inadvertently misled the House in claiming that the deficit had fallen? Would it be appropriate for him to correct the record now or should he make a statement today correcting the record and saying that borrowing has not gone down but up?

Mr Speaker: Every right hon. and hon. Member is responsible for the content, including the accuracy, of his or her answers. I know that neither the shadow Chancellor nor the Chancellor would seek to draw me into a debate on substantive matters. That would be unworthy, and neither of them is an unworthy individual.
	The shadow Chancellor has raised his point of order. There is an opportunity for the Chancellor to respond if he wishes—[Interruption.] Order. But he is under no obligation to do so. I have a suspicion that these matters will be aired further in the course of the week, and perhaps in weeks, months and indeed years to come. We will leave it there for now.

John Woodcock: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Last week I received a response from the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to my written question on how many occasions Ministers have signed off special severance payments for NHS employees in the past year. He said that it would cost too much to give me that information. How can the Government possibly claim to want an end to the culture of secrecy in the NHS if they are covering up their complicity in these pay-offs? Is there anything you can do to intervene, Mr Speaker?

Mr Speaker: I will make two points in response to the hon. Gentleman. The first is the point that I have just made—that all Members, including Ministers, must take responsibility for the content of their answers. My second point is that if the hon. Gentleman is dissatisfied with the answer because he thinks that it is uninformative or in some way lacks credibility or plausibility, it is open to him to take up his concern with the Procedure Committee. The House will doubtless be aware that the Procedure Committee, under the auspices of its indefatigable Chairman, the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker), is looking at the whole issue of answers to parliamentary questions, and I feel sure that he and his colleagues on the Committee will be happy to hear representations from the hon. Gentleman. That response is intended to be helpful to all Members of the House.

Jim McGovern: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am sure that you will have noticed that I was trying to catch your eye during Treasury questions. On 12 March, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury told me that the case of my constituent, Mr James Boyle, with Clydesdale bank was being looked into. Clydesdale bank has since written to me saying that, no, it has not been reviewed or looked into. Could the Speaker tell me whether the right hon. Gentleman has perhaps inadvertently misled the House?

Mr Speaker: The hon. Gentleman’s use of the point of order procedure is ingenious, but perhaps a tad cheeky. He is seeking to ask now the question that he did not have the opportunity to ask earlier. If we were to proceed on that basis, Treasury questions would, in effect, be at least doubled in length. The hon. Gentleman has made his point. I have no idea whether the Minister in any way feels that his reply to him requires revision or reconsideration in the light of the verdict of the bank. It has to be said that the expression “looked into” is a commonly deployed term that has about it a certain vagueness, and it therefore lends itself to a number of different interpretations. It would be inappropriate for me to suggest that anyone has misled the House, and I am certainly not doing so. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to take the matter up, he must correspond further with the Minister or hope to be luckier at Treasury questions in future.

Opposition Day
	 — 
	[4th Allotted Day]
	 — 
	Lobbying

[Relevant document: Second Report from the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, Session 2012-13, Introducing a statutory register of lobbyists, HC 153.]

Mr Speaker: I inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Jon Trickett: Let me start by entirely accepting that lobbying is a normal part—in fact, an essential part—of an active democracy, and that includes commercial lobbying. However, it has been clear for some time that the professional sector of the industry needs to be properly regulated. The Prime Minister, when he was Leader of the Opposition, said that lobbying is
	“an issue that crosses party lines and has tainted our politics for too long”
	and that it is
	“an issue that exposes the far-too-cosy relationship between politics, government, business and money.”
	We agree with him.

Priti Patel: rose—

Jon Trickett: I will give way, but not yet.
	The subject of today’s debate could not be more important for the reputation of the House of Commons, for every single right hon. and hon. Member knows in their heart of hearts that the perceived integrity of politicians is at an all-time low. The Prime Minister’s prediction that lobbying was the
	“next big scandal waiting to happen”
	has sadly proved to be all too correct. [Interruption.] It may be one of the few things he did get right, as my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley East (Michael Dugher) says. Knowing that this was going to happen, we ought to have moved rigorously and rapidly to ensure that our democracy emerged cleaner and with a higher reputation than it currently has.
	If we can, we ought to handle these matters in a non-partisan manner. It is therefore with some regret that we raise lobbying reform on an Opposition day, which is usually a political knockabout. It is particularly disappointing because it appeared that a cross-party consensus had begun to emerge that something needed to be done. In fact, by the time the coalition agreement had been signed, all three main parties had agreed to legislation and to the creation of a statutory register, but that was more than three years ago. Unfortunately, all the Government have done since then is to have a long, slow consultation followed by a White Paper, and then another long, slow consultation.
	When the reshuffle took place in September 2012, formal responsibility for lobbying reform had been totally removed from ministerial responsibilities. The Government simply forgot about lobbying reform.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Jon Trickett: I will give way in a moment.
	After the reshuffle, not a single Minister was left with a formal duty to bring forward the reform to which the Government had committed themselves. When we called this Opposition debate, we could therefore have had a sweepstake in the office on which Minister would speak on behalf of the Government, because none of them had formal responsibility for lobbying after the reshuffle. At the top of our guess list was the Deputy Prime Minister, but he was not too keen. In fact, he is nowhere to be seen this afternoon. We then thought that it might be my opposite number, the Minister for the Cabinet Office, because that is where the Bill is supposedly being drafted. He is nowhere to be seen either. We then thought that it would have to be the Minister for political and constitutional reform, the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Norwich North (Miss Smith). She is in the Chamber, but I see that she will not be speaking. None of the above will be responding. Very unusually, the Leader of the House will be speaking on this Opposition day. It seems that he was the last one standing when the music stopped.

Charlie Elphicke: Getting back to the subject of the debate, which is lobbying, does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is not right for parliamentary passes to be given to lobbyists?

Jon Trickett: The funding of political parties is being discussed—[Interruption.] Let me come to the point. That matter is being discussed in another place on a cross-party basis. Financial relationships between political parties and lobbyists clearly ought to be a matter for regulation. I believe that financial relationships between individual Members of Parliament and lobbyists should be outlawed, but I will come to that point in a minute.

Graham Allen: I chair the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, which has looked into this matter at length. It must surely be of concern to all parliamentarians and to Members from all parts of the House that the Government have failed to respond to a report that was published almost a year ago. Rather than legislate in haste, should we not look at this matter in a parliamentary way, with pre-legislative scrutiny and a proper response to a Select Committee that was elected by Members from all parts of the House?

Jon Trickett: I pay tribute to the work of my hon. Friend and all the members of his Select Committee. They have produced important recommendations. It would be helpful if we had sight of the Bill that it appears will emerge in due course, so that there could be pre-legislative scrutiny. It is time that we saw some progress on this matter.
	I welcome the fact that the Leader of the House will speak this afternoon because, although he is not listening to me, he is a decent parliamentarian. His duty as the Leader of the House is to protect all hon. Members, as well as the reputation of the House as a whole. I hope he will drive through the necessary process of lobbying reform.

Kelvin Hopkins: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. With all deference to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), the Chair of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, the Public Administration Committee published a report several years ago in the previous Parliament recommending a register of lobbyists. Also in the previous Parliament, I tabled an early-day motion that received more than 120 signatures from all parts of the House. The Government cannot forget these things.

Jon Trickett: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. There has been pressure for something to be done on lobbying for many years.
	In the three years since the coalition agreement was signed, we have had nothing but delay, obfuscation and prevarication, and the Government are at it again today. The Government’s amendment does not clearly indicate that they will produce a lobbying Bill, and that is shabby politics.

James Morris: rose—

Jon Trickett: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, but when he rises to his feet I invite him to say whether a lobbying Bill should be introduced, without any further obfuscation or prevarication of the type we have seen in the past three years—yes or no?

James Morris: I thank the hon. Gentleman for taking an intervention. He talks about obfuscation and delay, but I happen to remember that there was a Labour Government for 13 years. Will he tell me what happened to the idea of a lobbying register in those 13 years?

Jon Trickett: The hon. Gentleman would have a powerful argument about the previous Administration but for the fact that throughout the whole of that period the Conservative party argued for a voluntary register. Even as late as September 2009, the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr Maude), who became my opposite number, was arguing in the trade press that there should be a voluntary register. In March 2010, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), the deputy leader of our party, said that we had tried a voluntary register but it did not work, so we now needed to move towards legislation. In its manifesto, the Labour party clearly committed itself to a statutory register, but what did the Conservative party manifesto say? It said that the Conservative party wanted to persevere with a voluntary register. For the whole of the 13 years we were in office, it is clear that the Conservatives were pressing us not to legislate, and the fact is that in the past three years they have done nothing whatever to legislate.

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Of course, what he is telling the House is that the Labour Government did nothing for 13 years. Two months before the general election, when they no longer expecting to be in power, they said that they might do something in the future. He said that the Government’s amendment was not clear about our commitment, but it
	“welcomes the Government’s commitment to bring forward legislation before the summer recess”—

Thomas Docherty: When?

Andrew Lansley: I am about to say when: before this summer recess. For the benefit of the hon. Gentleman that is 18 July, not next summer recess:
	“before the summer recess to introduce a statutory register of lobbyists”
	within three years. That was in the coalition Government’s programme. His Government did not do anything.

Jon Trickett: The amendment goes on to talk about all kinds of other extraneous matters. The truth is that the Government are seeking to obscure the nature of the debate that we need to have this afternoon. This debate is about lobbying reform. Will there or will there not be a lobbying Bill that will create a serious register with a code of conduct?

Mark Durkan: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. He earlier quoted the Prime Minister on the “next big scandal”. Does he agree that it will be a scandal with planning permission, for both Government and Parliament, if we fail to legislate and to legislate robustly—not a light-touch statutory register, but robust legislation?

Jon Trickett: My hon. Friend makes an important point and does so more succinctly than I have been doing.
	The Government’s strategy has been clear: to kick the whole issue into the long grass for as long as possible and then to try to confuse and obscure the true issues. Only last month, we had the Queen’s Speech in which there was no mention of lobbying reform. It is only now, because of recent unfavourable headlines, that my opposite number finally said that he wanted to see some lobbying reform. We shall have a look later at what sort of lobbying reform that might be.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Jon Trickett: I will, but will the hon. Gentleman tell me whether there will be a lobbying Bill before the summer recess?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: If the hon. Gentleman took the trouble to read Hansard, he would have noticed that a lobbying Bill was introduced yesterday, so there is already a lobbying Bill on the Order Paper from his hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty). However, if this issue was so pressing at the time of the Queen’s Speech, why did the Labour party not raise it then or table an amendment to that effect? Or has it just jumped on a bandwagon?

Jon Trickett: If there are any more interventions of that poor quality, I will not take any more.
	I wrote an article in The Guardian in January 2012, using those three words: delay, prevarication and so on. It is simply not good enough to pretend that we have not been demanding some form of legislation for at least three years. The truth is that the Government have delayed and even this afternoon, as we shall see, they are attempting to obfuscate the true issues. A Bill was
	introduced yesterday but it was in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty), a Member on this side of the House.
	I hoped—obviously it was a vain hope—that this could be a non-partisan debate. Our reputation as a political class is now at an all-time low. Lobbyists needs to be made to operate in the clear light of day, so that every citizen can see and know how and why decisions are taken. They also need to see how much is being spent behind the scenes by commercial lobbyists to influence decision makers, and they need to see how that money is being spent. Nothing less will do. Let me illustrate the point with a case.
	I said that I would not be too partisan so I will not name the individual. Someone may work out who it is; some might be quicker than others. I shall refer to an Australian gentleman. In an Ashes summer, one would have thought that the Government would be on the British side rather than that of the Australians. He shall be nameless, but he is a highly paid adviser to the Prime Minister. Reportedly, he had discussions at Chequers prior to the Queen’s Speech with the Prime Minister and the Chancellor. [Hon. Members: “Patricia Hewitt?”] I do not think that she was a gentleman, although she was many things.
	When the Queen’s Speech was delivered, it transpired that the Government had dropped all reference not only to lobbying legislation but to plain tobacco packaging and minimum alcohol pricing, all of which had been promised. The problem arises when the public find out that this very same Australian is also and at the same time the chairman and managing director of an active lobbying company with an office here in London. The company has actively lobbied in Australia against plain tobacco packaging and against minimum alcohol pricing.
	I do not wish to accuse this gentleman of having behaved with any impropriety. Arguably—I do not know—he may have excused himself from the discussions with the Prime Minister at Chequers when the matter of a lobbying register came up. He might also have left the room when tobacco packaging was mentioned and done so once more when alcohol pricing was discussed. I do not know. But his company failed to register itself on the voluntary register of lobbyists in Australia and his company is not on the voluntary register in the UK. Therefore, we have no idea who his clients are, what their objectives are or how much money is being paid.

James Duddridge: I am quite quick on the uptake and I have an inkling as to who the hon. Gentleman may be talking about, but will he make it clear that this person is a party employee, not a Government employee, and that the arrangements are very similar to those of Charlie Whelan, Deborah Mattinson, Derek Draper and Alastair Campbell and that it would be duplicitous to say that they are in any way different?

Jon Trickett: I quoted the Prime Minister at the beginning of my speech. He said that this is a problem that affects all parties and has to be resolved by all parties. I take that point entirely.
	Referring back to the gentleman I am talking about, if there were a statutory register in place—as there would have been if Labour had won the last election—we would undoubtedly know who was lobbying on behalf of whom, how much was being spent and on behalf of which clients.

Mark Durkan: Does my hon. Friend recognise that experiences during the banking crisis, with the charity sector and in other areas have taught us that there is a key difference between registration and regulation and that proposals that centre only on registration do not give us what we need?

Jon Trickett: That brings me to my next point. The Prime Minister said that sunlight is the best disinfectant and I agree, but I do not believe that the proposals mentioned in the amendment match up to the requirements. Let me explain why. There are three reasons. First, it was drawn in such a way as to cover only the narrowest section of third-party lobbyists, which is less than a quarter of the whole industry. What is the point of having a register of professional lobbyists that will not register all professional lobbyists? Secondly, there is no sign of the Government including in the Bill—it is certainly not in the White Paper—a code of conduct that would regulate the register. Even the voluntary code that covers the more ethical part of the industry already has a code of conduct. Why would we want to have a lower statutory threshold than that which the more ethical section of the industry already imposes on itself and its own members?
	My third objection to the consultation, as the Government call it, is this: given that the Government are not proposing a code of conduct, there can be no sanctions applied against lobbyists who breach the code. Again, this is a lower standard than the industry’s existing codes. At the moment, any lobbyist working within the current ethical voluntary register is forbidden to engage in any improper financial relationship with any parliamentarian, which brings us to the bones of the issue.
	If we have a voluntary register and someone breaches the code by having such a relationship with a parliamentarian, they will be removed from the register and will be unable to practise as a lobbyist. That should be written into legislation, but it is not envisaged in the White Paper.
	The White Paper was
	“possibly one of the most shoddy documents I have ever seen government produce.”
	That is not my view, but that of a practising, professional lobbyist. Francis Ingham, director general of the Public Relations Consultants Association, said of the White Paper that the Government’s proposals were “unfit for purpose”.

John Cryer: The code of conduct, which my hon. Friend mentions, is habitually broken. For example—he mentioned this sort of contravention—the code says that parliamentarians should not be paid by lobbying companies that are signed up to the code, yet many Members at the other end of the corridor are directors of lobbying firms and so presumably are in receipt of payments. That breaks the code of conduct, but nobody does anything about it.

Jon Trickett: The problem is that many companies and lobbyists—the Australian I mentioned, for example—do not participate even in the voluntary code, which is why there must be statutory provision.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Jon Trickett: I will not take any more interventions, because I want to make some progress and other people want to speak.
	It is not difficult to define what the House should do to regulate the industry—I agree that the point is to regulate as well as to register, as my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) said—and it need not be burdensome for professional lobbyists. In fact, it takes about 20 minutes to provide the necessary information on the relevant form—I have tried it myself. The Bill should do four things. It should create a clear definition of professional lobbying; a statutory register of all those who lobby professionally; a clear code of conduct that forbids inappropriate financial relations between lobbyists and parliamentarians; and a strong system of sanctions when the code is breached.
	All that is detail, however. We are simply asking for a commitment from the Government to agree to cross-party talks—in fact, that is really all our motion asks for—not as an excuse for failing to act, but as a prelude to rapid action to bring this matter into proper order. I hope that the Government’s amendment to the motion is not a signal that they intend to conflate a series of irrelevant issues in order to obfuscate further and therefore once more evade the central question before us this afternoon, which is: how are we going to reform and then regulate the lobbying industry? The noble Lord Wallace, who speaks for the Cabinet Office in another place, said that the Government did not intend to conflate these matters. I hope he is correct, but I fear he is not.

Caroline Lucas: I agree with the hon. Gentleman, but does he agree that if we are genuinely to restore public trust in politics, the statutory register of lobbyists has to be the very minimum, and that we must do far more to tackle the excessive influence of corporate money and vested interests and to address things such as the invisible secondments of people from industry right into the centre of policy making here in Whitehall?

Jon Trickett: I will be speaking on other matters, as will other Labour spokespeople in due course, but the hon. Lady is right that we have to take big money out of politics across the board. We have proposals to do that, and have made some difficult recommendations on trade unions, if anyone is interested. It is the Government who are stalling the negotiations on party funding.
	We need a lobbying Bill that will begin the process of cleaning up our politics and create a level playing field for all the professional lobbyists who behave ethically but are constantly undermined by a few who do not play by the rules. Nothing less will do. The Leader of the House must say whether he will continue to speak for the closed circle, the tiny elite, that seems to run our country and on whose behalf many professional lobbyists often work, or whether he will speak on behalf of the many by placing the professional lobbying industry on a proper footing.

Andrew Lansley: I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “House” to the end and add:
	“notes the failure of the previous administration to implement a statutory register of lobbyists for 13 years; welcomes the Coalition Agreement commitment to regulate lobbying through a statutory register; notes the Government’s consultation paper on Introducing a Statutory Register of Lobbyists; welcomes the Government’s commitment to bring forward legislation before the summer recess to introduce a statutory register of lobbyists, as part of a broad package of measures to tighten the rules on how third parties can influence the UK’s political system; and looks forward to welcoming reforms that ensure that the activities of outside organisations who seek to influence the political process are transparent, accountable and properly regulated.”
	I move the amendment on behalf of the Government both as Leader of the House, in which capacity I seek to protect and promote the reputation of the House, which the motion claims might have been damaged—I am sorry that my being here disappoints the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett), who wanted other Ministers to be here, but I am pleased to be here, and am here as a volunteer, not a pressed man—and as a Cabinet Minister who, with ministerial colleagues, has policy responsibilities in this regard. I, along with the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Miss Smith), who has responsibility for political and constitutional reform, and the Deputy Leader of the House of Commons, my right hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), will take responsibility for the forthcoming Bill, which, as the amendment makes clear, we have committed to introduce before the summer recess. It will be a Bill to implement our coalition programme commitment to introduce a statutory register of lobbyists and to promote transparency and an improved regulatory framework for the influence of third parties in the political system.

Jon Trickett: rose—

Andrew Lansley: The hon. Gentleman wishes to intervene already. Perhaps he can add some clarity to his speech.

Jon Trickett: We might be able to foreshorten the debate, if the Leader of the House will say whether it will be a lobbying Bill.

Andrew Lansley: It will introduce a statutory register on lobbyists. I listened to the hon. Gentleman’s speech—honestly, I did—but I regret that it sank further and further into the quicksands of confused thinking.

Mark Spencer: rose—

Alex Cunningham: rose—

Andrew Lansley: I shall try to be even-handed. I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr Spencer) first.

Mark Spencer: It is good to hear that my right hon. Friend is here voluntarily and has not been lobbied, but, further to the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke), will he clarify whether he thinks it appropriate for hon. Members to give parliamentary passes to lobbyists?

Andrew Lansley: That is an important point. My personal view is that we should not be doing that. I do not wish to engage you directly in this debate, Mr Speaker, other than by way of approbation. I thought it was absolutely right that you made your proposal in the light of recent press allegations. In particular, it was absolutely right that you considered the question of the number of passes made available to sponsors of all-party parliamentary groups and asked the Committee on Standards to consider the matter. I had planned to refer to that in a moment.

Charlie Elphicke: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Andrew Lansley: As I am referring to this point, I will give way to my hon. Friend?

Charlie Elphicke: I want to underline my support for the idea that no lobbyist should have a parliamentary pass. In particular, nine Labour MPs sponsor parliamentary passes for union lobbyists. Does my right hon. Friend join me in condemning that, and will he say, here and now, that it is wrong?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend makes an important point. As Leader of the House, I have made it clear, along with my colleagues, that parliamentary passes should be made available for the purpose of supporting Members of Parliament in their parliamentary responsibilities, not for the benefit of third parties. It is not to conflate unrelated issues for the Government to focus on this issue of third-party influence in the political system. The process must be transparent. If third parties are involved, as inevitably they will be—that includes trade union relationships with the Labour party, which are absolutely fine—it must be transparent and not convert what should be a transparent third-party relationship into the undisclosed control of, or influence over, parliamentarians.

Robert Flello: The right hon. Gentleman said in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) that the Bill would introduce a register of lobbyists. Will he confirm that it will also include the regulation of lobbyists?

Andrew Lansley: The hon. Gentleman should talk to his own Front-Bench team. [Interruption.] I am just answering his question. The point is that it will introduce a statutory register of lobbyists, and in that sense it is a regulatory process. I will explain our approach later.
	Did the hon. Member for Hemsworth really think it was sensible to have this debate just weeks before publication of the Bill? What was he thinking?

Jon Trickett: You’re not going to have a lobbying Bill.

Andrew Lansley: Yes, we are. Its purpose will be to introduce a statutory register of lobbyists, which is what we said in the coalition programme we would do.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Andrew Lansley: If I may, I will make a little progress before giving way. I have not yet had an opportunity to respond to the hon. Member for Hemsworth, whose speech, I am afraid, sank into the sands of sloppy thinking. I probably should not be surprised about that—people
	said the motion was nothing but a piece of political opportunism launched off the back of recent reports—but I am a more generous soul. I looked for a purpose in the Labour motion. I hoped that the debate would show evidence of Labour thinking practical thoughts about how to promote a more open and accountable system. That hope was, however, not founded on experience. We know that Labour did not actually do anything about a statutory register of lobbyists for the 13 years it was in government. We are three years into this Parliament, and there have been 86 Opposition day debates, yet this is the first on lobbying.
	We know why Labour did nothing about lobbying. The hon. Member for West Bromwich East (Mr Watson) said in October 2011:
	“It was very, very, difficult to get right. We were persuaded by the industry that they would set up their own code”.
	But Labour did not put in place the statutory register it now calls for, and it so lacked a view during this Parliament—notwithstanding what the hon. Member for Hemsworth has just said—that it did not even respond to the public consultation on the Government’s proposals that were published last year.

Alex Cunningham: No one could be more aware than the right hon. Gentleman, as a former Health Secretary, that the tobacco industry lobby is one of the most powerful groups around this place, given its direct and covert campaigns to delay legislation to introduce plain packaging for its products, among other things. Will the Government ensure, if and when they get round to registering lobbying organisations, that such organisations will be required to reveal whose payroll they are on, to ensure greater transparency? For example, tobacco companies might finance third-party organisations as a front to promote their causes.

Andrew Lansley: The hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Hemsworth have chosen the wrong person to attack on the question of tobacco control. When I was in opposition, I made it clear as shadow Secretary of State for Health that my party would not engage with the tobacco industry, and we did not do so. In government, I made it clear that we would comply with the international framework convention on tobacco control, which precludes the exercise of influence on our policy by the tobacco industry, and we do so. I was the person who sat down and talked to the Australian Health Minister, way back in the latter part of 2010, in order to understand what she intended to do, and I was the one who launched a consultation on standardised packaging for tobacco. I know that this Government are taking decisions in the best interests of the people of this country, including on health grounds, and that we are not taking them at the behest of any tobacco company.

Gareth Thomas: Will the right hon. Gentleman clarify whether the Bill will include a statutory code of conduct that lobbyists will have to abide by?

Andrew Lansley: As I have said, it will set out a statutory register of lobbyists.

Guy Opperman: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Andrew Lansley: No, I will not give way. It would be better for me to make my speech and explain what we are planning to do than simply to try to respond to more interventions.
	We did not hear from the Opposition about this subject; they did not respond to our consultation last year. It is interesting that the first time we heard from them was when we announced that we would introduce a Bill before the summer, at which point they tabled their motion calling for the Government to introduce a Bill. This is an interesting concept: they are not jumping on someone else’s bandwagon; they are jumping on ours. This is a flagrant example of that.
	In the event, the hon. Member for Hemsworth did not offer any practical ideas; instead, he offered assertions and slogans masquerading as policy. He should have had the honesty to admit that the Labour Government put the issue in the “too hot to handle” box. They did not resolve the complex nature of the problem, which has been revealed by the divergent responses to the consultation. The responses showed that we are far from achieving consensus on the nature of regulation that is required.
	The Government will set out to promote the culture of openness that best delivers the positive behaviours and public confidence that we all seek.

John Cryer: rose—

Pete Wishart: rose—

Grahame Morris: rose—

Andrew Lansley: Let me explain a little more, then I will give way again.
	There are two ways in which we can go about regulating conduct in political life. We can create a comprehensive rules-based system backed up by intrusive enforcement, to try to specify what everyone should and should not do pretty much all the time. That would be immensely bureaucratic and costly, and would involve a constant effort to keep up. It would create not a culture of openness but a “see what you can get away with” approach.
	The other way forward is to be clear about the standards expected, based on the Nolan principles, and to ensure that all those who exercise responsibilities—and all those who seek to influence them—are subject to the necessary transparency in their actions and contacts, and held accountable for their actions, so that we can see who is doing what, and why. For those who seek to influence the political system without the necessary transparency, there will be clear sanctions available.

Barry Sheerman: I think the right hon. Gentleman heard the valid point that my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) made earlier. This is a complex business. Some of the big legal firms are now half lawyers and half lobbyists, and they say that they will refuse to be involved in the proposed register because of client confidentiality. There are some really big problems, but Members on both sides of the House want to get this right. May we have a pre-legislative inquiry to enable us to do that? This is a really difficult one. We used to think that accountancy firms consisted of auditors and accountants, but look at their track record now that the
	banks are going to hell in a handcart. Many of those firms do not need lobbyists, because they have been here all the time lobbying as companies. I was quite enthused by the right hon. Gentleman’s opening remarks, but may we have a pre-legislative inquiry to enable us to get this right?

Andrew Lansley: The hon. Gentleman will know that I am an advocate of ensuring that the Government legislate after we have consulted and, whenever possible, sought scrutiny of the proposed legislation. I fear, however, that if we were to go further in regard to pre-legislative scrutiny, we would not be able to legislate in the time frame we have set out. We published draft clauses, and the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee produced a report on them that was not wholly supportive. I completely understand that. We have reflected—at length, I freely admit—on what the Committee said, and I believe that we will now be able to proceed with the Bill. It might not meet everyone’s objectives, but it will do what is necessary to create the clarity, transparency and openness that form the basis for us to ensure that public confidence is achieved.

Graham Allen: rose—

John Cryer: rose—

Andrew Lansley: I will give way to the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen). I apologise to the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (John Cryer); I will give way to him in a moment.

Graham Allen: The right hon. Gentleman is trying to legislate for and about Parliament and about lobbying in Parliament. It is therefore only fair that Parliament should have due process and be able to understand the Bill so that it can make it better on behalf of all parties. He says that the time frame is very compressed, but he has yet to respond to the Select Committee’s report from nearly a year ago, so there was clearly a little bit of ease in the time frame at that point. Will he please leave the door open so that proper pre-legislative scrutiny can take place before the Bill comes before the House, in order that all Members can understand these complicated issues and legislate better on lobbying than we seem to be doing at the moment?

Andrew Lansley: We will introduce a Bill before the summer recess but, given the nature of things, we might not be able to proceed with its consideration until the September sittings or later. That would afford people an opportunity, in the context of the Second Reading debate and elsewhere, to look at how we have resolved the issues.

John Cryer: I was listening to what the right hon. Gentleman said about the demands that the register would place on lobbyists. Will that include having to provide financial information, such as how much has been spent on lobbying? Many Members on both sides of the House think that that would be an important part of the jigsaw.

Andrew Lansley: I am not planning to do that at the moment. We have made it clear that we are going to introduce a statutory register that makes third-party influence clear, so that people will know on whose behalf lobbyists with third-party clients who are seeking to influence us are working. I listened with care to some of the interventions
	on the hon. Member for Hemsworth, and I acknowledge that there are important issues about the relationships between lobbying companies—and lobbyists who act on their own behalf rather than on behalf of third parties —and parliamentarians. But, frankly, is it not up to Parliament itself to be very clear about this? Contrary to what has been suggested, I am not planning to legislate within Parliament. For example, the issues that the standards code is rightly looking at in relation to the interests of the Chairs of Select Committees and the interests of all-party parliamentary groups and how they are represented are important ones, but they are matters for the House to determine, as I shall explain.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Andrew Lansley: I want to make a little more progress before giving way to my hon. Friends.

Pete Wishart: And to me, too.

Andrew Lansley: And to the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), whose views I always respect.
	As a Government, we believe that we must choose the route of trying to produce a transparent system. The contrary route—a completely rules-based approach, rather than one based on principles—is more likely to fail, as too often rules then create loopholes that people will exploit when they can. In contrast, we are setting out to create an open and transparent culture that transforms behaviour so that people live up to these principles. As a Government, we have pursued such an open approach, so that we can look with justification to promoting some of the most transparent actions ever.

Gareth Thomas: rose—

Andrew Lansley: I have given way to the hon. Gentleman before.
	We have published departmental business plans so that Ministers can be held to account on the development of policy. We have published more than 9,000 datasets from Government Departments, public sector bodies and local authorities. We have published details of Ministers’ and permanent secretaries’ meetings with external individuals, including lobbyists. We have published details of gifts, overseas travel and hospitality received by Ministers and special advisers. We are now planning to go further with a Bill to create a statutory register of lobbyists.
	Let me be clear, as the hon. Member for Hemsworth was, that there is nothing wrong with lobbying as such. It is a necessary—indeed an inevitable—part of policy making and the parliamentary process. Politics is about the reconciliation of conflicting interests in society, and the articulation of those interests is necessary to enable the political system to be effective. What is required is that the representation of interests to decision makers is made transparently, fairly, accountably and free of improper influence. The Nolan principles provide a high-level framework, as amplified by the code of conduct for Members here and by the ministerial code. If, in all
	cases, Members and lobbyists lived with the letter and the spirit of those principles and codes, our system could command greater confidence.

Mark Spencer: Will the Leader of the House clarify that barriers will not be put in place to stop constituency groups such as the Fire Brigades Union, the Police Federation and small church charities lobbying their MP, as they should not be precluded from that process?

Andrew Lansley: I think that we in this House should be clear that our constituents have a right to lobby us as their constituency Members of Parliament. What is important is that we always behave in a way that is consistent with the code of conduct for Members so that we act as constituency representatives, not on the basis of any other inappropriate or improper relationships.

Pete Wishart: The Leader of the House will know that in Scotland we are progressing our register of lobbyists through a cross-party private Member’s Bill. Does he recognise the efforts we have made in the Scottish Parliament to try to deal with this problem, and is that a model that he might indeed follow?

Andrew Lansley: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that there are a number of models in a number of jurisdictions across the world, which we have of course looked at and considered carefully. What I am emphasising here is that we are going to proceed on the basis of a belief that the greatest possible clarity and transparency is the key to achieving the confidence we are looking for. In order for that to happen, what is particularly necessary is that the public can see who is lobbying whom.

Grahame Morris: rose—

Gareth Thomas: rose—

Andrew Lansley: I will give way in a few moments.
	In that respect, there is a lacuna, in that when Ministers meet consultant lobbyists, it is not always clear to the public on whose behalf those consultants or companies are lobbying. The purpose of the measures we will introduce is to rectify that deficiency.
	Of course, to make the transparency complete, further steps may be required. In particular, lobbyist meetings with shadow Ministers, the relationships of external interests to parliamentarians through all-party parliamentary groups and Select Committees, including their Chairs, may require further steps. The latter issues relating to all-party groups and Select Committees are, as I mentioned earlier, matters for the House, and the Government welcome the referral of these issues by Mr Speaker to the Committee on Standards—now, of course, reinforced by its lay membership. I hope that the House will be able to consider what steps to take on the basis of that Committee’s advice. As I have made clear, the House should proceed only on the basis of recommendations relating to House matters from its own bodies for this purpose. I know these issues are not as straightforward as some represent them, but we are now proceeding with them.

Grahame Morris: rose—

Andrew Lansley: I will give way later.
	The question of the publication of shadow Ministers’ diaries in the same way as Ministers currently publish theirs is, of course, a matter for the Labour Front-Bench team.

Gareth Thomas: rose—

Andrew Lansley: In the spirit of openness, I shall give way to the hon. Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas). I hope he will indicate the willingness of his shadow Front-Bench team to publish their diaries in the same way as Ministers publish theirs.

Gareth Thomas: A tiny group of lobbyists are third-party lobbyists. Will the Leader of the House be clear about whether the Bill will include in-house lobbyists—Fred Michel, for example?

Andrew Lansley: I am sorry, but I did not hear the hon. Gentleman volunteer any comment in response to my question. To be fair, perhaps it is more the responsibility of the hon. Member for Hemsworth, so perhaps he would like to stand up and say that shadow Ministers believe that in order to secure the necessary transparency, they, as well as Ministers, should publish their diaries.

Grahame Morris: rose—

Andrew Lansley: Perhaps the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) would like to speak on behalf of the Labour party and volunteer this confirmation on its behalf.

Grahame Morris: It is very kind of the Leader of the House to give way—I was starting to think that I had inadvertently offended him in a previous life. How does he think the public will react when they find out that, one in four Conservative peers and 58 Conservative MPs have recent or current financial links with private health care? Will the Bill address that?

Andrew Lansley: I have no idea of the specifics of what the hon. Gentleman talks about or of what precisely he means by what he said, but what I would say is that transparency is important. If Members of this House have financial interests in companies, they should be very clear about them in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and they should be very clear that they do not act in Parliament in a way from which they could personally benefit through their relationship with those external interests.

Helen Jones: rose—

Andrew Lansley: Let me try the hon. Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones). Would she, in the interests of transparency, like to volunteer on behalf of the Labour party to publish the meetings that her shadow Ministers have with external lobbying companies?

Helen Jones: The right hon. Gentleman should understand that he is supposed to be answering the questions. Let me put this point to him. Will the Bill that he proposes include regulations on in-house lobbying, such as the type associated with Fred Michel? Yes or no?

Andrew Lansley: I thought I had made it clear on many occasions that what we are setting out to do in the Bill is to create a statutory register of lobbyists in the context of seeking to make absolutely clear where a third-party influence is being exercised in relation to Ministers. I used to be Secretary of State for Health, as Members will recall. We published our diaries of meetings and when the British Medical Association came to see me, nobody was under any illusions about why they did so. That applies, too, to the Royal College of Nurses, other royal colleges, the Patients Association, the NHS Federation—the list is endless. There was no doubt about the nature of the representations from people associated with many of these organisations. Where a lobbying company is seeking to influence Ministers, the permanent secretary or whomever it might be, the issue is knowing who their clients are. That is where the gap lies, and that is what we are focusing on. [Interruption.] I do not know about Fred Michel in that sense.

Barry Sheerman: Will the Leader of the House give way?

Andrew Lansley: For the last time.

Barry Sheerman: I can give a straightforward answer in that I believe our shadow Ministers should publish their diaries; I see nothing wrong with that. The right hon. Gentleman has bounced that issue on us, but I imagine that most serious Labour Members—and most of them are serious—would say yes to that. Let me press the right hon. Gentleman on this point. All the groups he mentioned lobbied him, quite legitimately, when he was Secretary of State for Health, but the key issue is whether this lobbying register will go right across the sort of people that lobbied him, including the lawyers, the accountants and the big companies, so that everybody is included in the register—not just a tiny circle of professional lobbying companies representing only about 25% of the lobbying industry.

Andrew Lansley: With respect, I think the hon. Gentleman has missed the point, which I have already made. The gap lies where Ministers, permanent secretaries and—I hope his hon. Friends will take the matter up—shadow Ministers need to set out who they meet and for what purpose and on whose behalf they are being met. When I met members of the BMA and the RCN, we were under no illusions about that. If I were to meet representatives of a lobbying company that had a client in an industry and we did not know who the client was, we would not have the necessary degree of transparency. That is what we are talking about: ensuring that we have the maximum transparency.

Barry Sheerman: rose—

Andrew Lansley: I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman twice. I am grateful to him for agreeing with what I said, but those on his own Opposition Front Bench will not—

Barry Sheerman: rose—

Andrew Lansley: I am sorry, but I will not give way again. [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. The Leader of the House has made it clear that he will not give way. The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) has a beatific smile on his face, but he has been in the House for 34 years, and he knows that a Member cannot make a point by means of an intervention if the Member who is on his or her feet will not give way.

Barry Sheerman: I was being helpful.

Mr Speaker: The hon. Gentleman chunters from a sedentary position that he was being helpful, but I think that his concept of helpfulness is not necessarily shared.

Andrew Lansley: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It will be noted that Opposition Front Benchers, despite having tabled the motion, are not themselves willing to contribute to the transparency that we all require.
	As the House knows, the essential component to inspire confidence in the political system is the behaviour of Members of Parliament and those in the political system. We have responsibility and power. We must live according to the highest possible standards and we must live by the letter of the rules, but, as past events have shown, it is even more vital for us to live by the spirit of the principles of public life.
	Many of the breaches and scandals that we have seen in recent years arose not because the rules were unclear—although, in the case of the expenses scandal, they too often were—but because people had behaved badly, and I believe that transparency is the key to dealing with that as well. I believe that the great majority of those in our Parliament and our political system set out to behave well and do behave well, but, human nature being what it is, the minority who are tempted to do otherwise need to know that they cannot engage in sustained, concealed efforts to peddle influence. Their activity will be brought into the open, and they must expect to be held to account for their behaviour, for, as the Prime Minister has said, sunlight is the best disinfectant. To secure that transparency was the purpose of the efforts that we have undertaken over the past three years, and it is the purpose of our forthcoming Bill.

Andrew Turner: My right hon. Friend has said that Ministers must have a register and that it would help him if Opposition Front Benchers operated the same system, but have I a responsibility to make public the identity of people who are consulting me? More important, if they are people in my constituency, there may be a secretary who spends a small amount of money on assisting me. Am I required to publish that as well?

Andrew Lansley: As my hon. Friend will know, the responsibilities that we have as Members relate to the Members code, which does not include a responsibility for us to publish the details of our meetings, the names of those whom we meet, and the purposes for which we meet them. That protection is afforded to Back Benchers and, of course, to shadow Ministers as well. We as Ministers are clear about the fact that we publish our diaries, on the basis that we exercise responsibilities and power. If shadow Ministers take the view that they have no power and are therefore not accountable for whom they meet, for whom those they meet represent, and for the influence that those people are seeking to exert, they will have to argue the case themselves.
	The Opposition motion calls for a Bill to be introduced before the summer recess. I am pleased that, in this instance, they agree with the Government. Well before the motion was tabled, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear that a Bill would be introduced before the recess. The motion also calls for cross-party talks. That comes as something as a surprise, as the Opposition have not previously demonstrated an interest in this issue. They have not sought constructively to engage the Government in discussion of it during the three years for which the introduction of a register has been under consideration—foreshadowed, of course, in the coalition programme-—and they made no response to the Government’s consultation last year.
	Now the Opposition say that they want a register of “professional lobbyists”. I still have no idea what they mean by that, or what is the logic of it. Are they referring to everyone who lobbies Government or Parliament, and who is paid? I do not think that they mean “professional” in the sense of having a relevant professional qualification, so “professional” must mean “paid”, and that would capture an immense number of people.

John Cryer: Will the Leader of the House give way?

Andrew Lansley: No. I am about to end my speech.
	In contrast, the Government’s proposals for a statutory register of lobbyists focus on cases in which further clarity is required. The introduction of the register is part of a broad package of measures to tighten the rules on how third parties influence our political system, along with reforms to ensure the accountability of outside organisations that seek to influence the political process. Together, those two elements constitute a further, clear demonstration of our commitment to transparency in the political system.
	As was demonstrated by the response to the Government’s consultation, the introduction of a statutory register of lobbyists is a complex issue, and one that has required careful consideration by the Government. Our proposals will deliver a register that will increase transparency without placing disproportionate burdens on those who legitimately lobby Government and Parliament. We will present those proposals before the summer recess, and we will continue to work with those who have engaged with our plans.
	I welcome the Opposition’s new-found interest in our proposals, and hope that they will now seek to engage constructively in making our political system more transparent. Perhaps, on reflection, they will agree to engage positively in the publication of shadow ministerial diaries, in order to ensure that transparency exists from their point of view as well.
	On that basis, I ask the House to support the amendment and, if necessary, to reject the motion.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. Given the number of Back Benchers who wish to speak, there will be a 10-minute limit on all Back-Bench contributions.

Graham Allen: There is no doubt that we need a lobbying Bill—we have needed one for some time, and we now need one relatively soon—but it is important for us to learn the lessons of the past, and not to legislate in haste and repent at leisure.

Robert Flello: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Graham Allen: Now that we are down to 10 minutes, I shall probably rush through my speech rather more quickly than I expected to, but if my hon. Friend will allow me to get past my first sentence, I shall look forward to the bonus minute later.
	Nor should we respond to media stories by producing Bills. We should proceed in a measured, careful way, and we should involve the House. Let us not forget that it is the Government who control Parliament, down to the minutest detail. That applies even to the scheduling of today’s debate, and the use of our Opposition time to do so. The Government will continue to exercise that control until we elect our legislature and our Executive separately, as most modern democracies do.
	When it suits Governments—not just the present Government, but many Governments in the past—they throw up their hands in mock horror at some transgression that has taken place in the House, or as a result of interaction with lobbyists. In many instances, however, they have been complicit, having either not legislated in a timely fashion, or formed a corrupted relationship with Members of Parliament and others. The most obvious recent example is the failure to tackle Members of Parliament’ salaries, the introduction and promotion of a culture in which the provision of allowances and expenses was substituted for such action, and the failure, over 20 years, to answer the question.
	I hope that we will not repeat some of those mistakes. I hope that we will take the lobbying issue seriously, and will not merely use it as a way of buying buy off media speculation about the fact that a Member of Parliament—one of 650—has been found, thanks to the combined resources of Fleet street and the BBC, to be allegedly doing something that he or she should not be doing.

Robert Flello: I am enjoying my hon. Friend’s speech. Does he agree that that is exactly why a Joint Committee of both Houses should look at the issue pre-legislatively and in great detail?

Graham Allen: I think there are many ways to skin this particular cat. If the Government are serious about creating an effective lobbying Bill—as many Back-Bench Members and my Select Committee are—then where there is a will, there is a way. We can find a way to do that, but the measure in its current form is a reactive and short-term measure, and it is not part of a serious, well-thought-out reform package, either by the media, who are keen to nail individual Members of Parliament, or, more seriously, by the Government, and, indeed, previous Governments of different political colours.
	Parliament must take a lead on the specific issue of lobbying, but I very much hope we do not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Lobbying is a very important part of our democracy. I imagine most Members of this
	enfeebled Parliament use lobbying ourselves very directly with Ministers to try to make our points, and many of us create all-party groups. Some of us lobby effectively, although, speaking as someone who is lobbying for the Government to keep their promise on bringing forward proposals for a House business committee, which was in the coalition agreement, some of us are also obviously failing in getting the Government to fulfil their own promises. Government Front-Bench Members will not be surprised to learn that we will continue to press that issue as well, however.
	My Select Committee has looked at the lobbying question very seriously. We spent a long time interviewing witnesses. We have eminent Committee members from different parties—some of whom are present in the Chamber—and they might not in the normal shape of things be soul mates or agree on all matters, but they produced a report that the Government have had in their possession for the best part of a year. It is a measure of how seriously the Government take this matter that, first, the Leader of the House is chatting away and not listening to the Chairman of the Select Committee, who is asking him to do something he should have done nine months ago, and, secondly, he does not respond to this House, let alone to me or to my Committee members. That Ministers just do not bother answering is regarded by many as rather cavalier.
	However, if a scandal is revealed by Fleet street and Ministers feel they need to show how tough they are by taking action and doing something, suddenly a Bill appears, or the promise of a Bill is made, even before they respond to a Select Committee of this House. I hope the Leader of the House will take these matters a little more seriously, because if he does, and he dares to allow Parliament to be a partner in the process of making the law—rather than finding something off the shelf in the Department—he may be in serious danger of creating a Bill that will command all-party support and the support of this House.

Alan Whitehead: Has my hon. Friend had any communication in his capacity as Chair of the Select Committee from the Government on why such a response has been so long delayed? Have any particular reasons been put to him, or is it his view that they simply have not noticed that there is a report to be responded to?

Graham Allen: I would be very happy to give way on that point either to the Leader of the House or the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Norwich North (Miss Smith) who very kindly came to our Select Committee last week. They may wish to speak for themselves, but there has certainly been a lot of correspondence in trying to get a response. That is expected—it is standard practice—and I do not know whether I should raise the matter with the Chair. However, I would hope that Select Committees of this House who undertake serious study and scrutiny of Government are usually responded to in a proper way, because that will help us to make better law, instead of having a knee-jerk response because of one person being entrapped by the media—I am not expressing any view on that, as this is still under study—that seems to me to put the cart before the horse. On an issue where there should be support across the House, it seems that there is almost a
	deliberate attempt to break any potential for consensus on, and longevity for, the legislation that we may bring forward.
	As with the Dangerous Dogs Act, we are in danger of introducing a dangerous Members of Parliament Act, and we may well regret that in the longer term. This is not just a news story or just a way of refuting Fleet street in that corrupting partnership between Government and media. This is about an important part of the fabric of our democracy. Lobbying is important, and this is about allowing it to flourish, and getting things right, and making sure the people who put it in such bad odour are exposed.
	Lobbying in the UK is currently unregulated. The UK Public Affairs Council operates a voluntary register, but registration rates are low. The Government agree that a voluntary register is not working. A commitment to introducing a statutory register of lobbyists was included in the coalition agreement. My Committee looked at this. We took oral evidence over many sessions and produced our report. I hope the Government listen to what we have said, which was not damning, saying, “This couldn’t happen.” Instead, we suggested how something can be introduced in a way that is sustainable.
	The first fatal flaw we asked the Government to look at was the fact that so much of the lobbying industry would not be covered by a statutory register. Just covering third-party lobbyists does not do the job. There are lots of different figures available, but we found 100 organisations that were third-party lobbyists. Spinwatch, at one end of the spectrum in this debate, says there are between 3,500 and 4,000 full-time lobbyists. This proposal does not do the job, therefore, because it is one-eighth of a lobbying Bill, rather than a Bill that covers lobbyists in their entirety.
	The second flaw is that we do not have an effective definition of lobbying, so that we all know what we are talking about—and so that lobbyists know what we are talking about, and that Members of Parliament talking to someone in either a private or public meeting, perhaps with a tape recorder or video camera concealed and recording them, know exactly where the lines are. That will enable us to produce something that is sustainable and that people can live with for many years to come. My Committee therefore also asked for a clearer definition.
	We came to the conclusion that we were only scratching the surface of the issue. We therefore proposed what we called a medium regulation system as a starting point for a statutory register of lobbyists. A lot of Members have got great ideas, and I hope there will be a process by which they can be fed into our law-making process. There needs to be that starting point—that foundation or bedrock—that we can build on in future years. Let us put this in place. Some may regard it as the lowest common denominator, but that in itself is a good starting point, so that if problems arise, those colleagues who come after us can build on something that commands a consensus of support in this House.

John Glen: The hon. Gentleman is making a very measured and reasonable speech, particularly in respect of his point about responding to Select Committees. Does he agree that one of the basic principles we should endorse is that both the Opposition and the
	Government should publish details of meetings, and would he encourage his Front-Bench colleagues to give that undertaking to the House today?

Graham Allen: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is treating this matter a little more superficially than I would have hoped. There are some important questions, and no doubt he can raise them, but I am not going to get involved in that sort of frippery. I am capable of going in that direction, but I will not do so because there are some serious issues here that concern the hon. Gentleman as well as everybody else.
	My Select Committee looked at the possibility of having a hybrid code of conduct to operate alongside the statutory register. We addressed that idea carefully. It is possible to do it, and we believe that, just as we commanded support in our own disparate all-party Select Committee, it is possible for the House to come to a satisfactory conclusion on that. It would mean that organisations and individuals on the register would sign up to their particular industry’s code of conduct.
	We must use the time we have available to do some pre-legislative scrutiny. The Bill will be introduced very soon. I hope the Leader of the House will give us a month or so in September, so that we can do the job properly for the House.

John Stevenson: Yesterday, I took a phone call from a constituent who wanted to lobby me on a particular local issue relevant to him and his neighbours. This morning, I met a person from a public relations firm who wanted to discuss an issue relevant to one of his clients. As I walked through Portcullis House today, I passed a large number of MPs talking with constituents, the media, lobbyists, pressure groups and many other organisations. In many ways, they were doing exactly what an MP should be doing. I then headed to this Chamber, passing through Central Lobby, the Members’ Lobby and the Aye Lobby before arriving here.
	As hon. Members will realise, I am trying to demonstrate that lobbying is a fact of political life. The reality is that lobbying is an important part of our political environment and process. It is a legitimate activity that is a significant contributor to our political system and political activity. It brings to our system a number of important benefits that we would be the poorer for if they were not available: it allows MPs to hear different sides of an argument and different prospectuses. MPs themselves lobby on a variety of issues when we hold passionate beliefs or on matters that relate to our constituencies. Indeed, we participate in and set up all-party groups, many of which are involved with lobbying. Arguably, lobbying allows us to become better informed and more aware of the issues, and, on occasions, we can even have our minds changed by the evidence put before us by lobbying groups. I therefore fully support the right of businesses, charities and other organisations to lobby.
	However, what is important is that lobbying or campaigning groups supporting a particular cause should carry out such activities in an open and transparent way. What we all clearly want to avoid is undue pressure being exerted or inappropriate activities being carried out. It is equally important that an individual’s position
	is not compromised, such as through payments being made that are incompatible with that person’s office. In a perfect world, there would be no need to change the current arrangements, but introducing a lobbying register can and should help to increase openness and transparency and, importantly, to improve the public’s confidence in our political system.

James Gray: I have been listening carefully to what my hon. Friend has been saying and he is talking a huge amount of sense about the fact that our entire life involves being lobbied. However, I am slightly at variance with him about whether the proposed register should encompass only those people who are paid as third parties—we do not know on whose behalf they are lobbying—or all the others who lobby, such as his constituent and the other interest groups he mentioned. Does he agree that the important thing is that groups such as Keene Public Affairs, an organisation that undermined one of my all-party groups recently, ought to be named, ought to be on the register and ought to have to declare who their clients are and that the register should not apply to ordinary lobby groups of the kind that he described?

John Stevenson: I agree, and I believe the thrust of my argument will be very much in tune with what my hon. Friend suggests.
	The crucial issue is public confidence. I accept there will always been the potential for the unscrupulous or the criminal—it was ever thus—but having some level of registration will create greater openness, which I would like to think will help drive standards of behaviour to a much higher level, one that is acceptable to the public. As I have said, it would also improve the public’s confidence in our political system. I will therefore be supporting the underlying principles that the Government’s forthcoming Bill will bring forward, and I look forward to seeing what they have to propose and considering it in the usual way.

Graham Allen: The hon. Gentleman is, as usual, making a thoughtful and careful speech. He supports his Government’s proposals, but does he agree that everyone in the House would benefit from this issue being given a proper pre-legislative period? That would allow Members, wherever they are, to make the sort of representations he is making, either to a Select Committee or to a Joint Committee, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) suggested, so that when the Bill comes back for its Second Reading we are all way better informed about what we can achieve and how we can do that?

John Stevenson: We hope that today’s debate will help to inform Members of the House and bring the issues to light, and, thus, inform the Second Reading debate.
	As I said, I will support the underlying principles of the Government’s forthcoming legislation. I would, however, wish to ensure that it is as simple and as straightforward to administer as possible. It should not and must not over-regulate the industry. Clearly, I accept it must be comprehensive in its approach to ensure that all appropriate organisations are registerable, and ensure a fair and level playing field. Organisations in the commercial sector must be included, as should trade organisations,
	certain charities and organisations that are campaigning to influence the legislative process and Executive decisions—yes, that should include the trade union movement.
	Trade unions are an important part of our industrial relations and our political process. They are undoubtedly one of the most powerful lobbying organisations in the country, receiving substantial sums from the taxpayer; in July 2010, the trade unions received nearly £6 million. I believe that 23 members of the shadow Cabinet have received funding from trade unions and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) said, nine Labour MPs are sponsoring parliamentary passes for trade union lobbyists. Powerful bodies that, in effect, bankroll one of the main political parties must be seen to be open and transparent and must be open and transparent. That is in their interests, as well as in those of the public. This is an opportunity to help improve the transparency and accountability of the trade unions. In particular, when they are lobbying, it should be clear what their true membership is and what the implications are for strike ballots and for the payment of the political levy. All should be open to scrutiny and proper confirmation.

Gareth Thomas: For the avoidance of doubt, we do not have a problem with those who work for trade unions and who lobby being covered by a more comprehensive piece of legislation than the Government are considering. We think that all in-house lobbyists should be covered by the legislation. That is the point of difference between us and the Government, and between the hon. Gentleman and the Government, too.

John Stevenson: I am glad to hear the hon. Gentleman confirm that the Labour party will support the inclusion of trade unions, because it failed to do any of that in its time in office. Labour had 13 years in office and we had absolutely nothing from the Labour party. As with much of the present political agenda, Labour is playing catch-up with Government policies on a range of issues, as well as with the views of the public. This is another example of Labour trying to pretend that it is on the right side of the argument.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Stevenson: I have taken enough interventions. The reality is that Labour is so far behind public opinion and the Government are in tune with it. I commend the coalition Government for going out to consultation on this issue and now bringing forward legislation; a proper register of lobbyists and a fair set of requirements for disclosure is the correct way forward. I would also like to see a set of criteria for the funding of campaigns by third-party groups during elections. I believe that at the last election about £3 million was spent by third-party groups on campaigning, and it is right that that should be regulated in the proper way. Any reasonable person would consider these reforms to be absolutely appropriate. They are all part of rebuilding the public’s confidence in our politics and a way of encouraging all those engaging in the political process to act, and to be seen to act, openly and transparently. It is sad that the Labour party has been so slow to engage with this issue but, as I said, it likes to follow our lead.

John Cryer: I echo earlier comments made about lobbying. I have always supported a lobbying Bill to create a register of lobbyists in a transparent and properly regulated way, but I have no objection to lobbying per se. It is part of everyday life—or it should be if we are doing our jobs properly. We get lobbied on a weekly basis, on all sorts of issues, by church groups, mosques, gurdwaras, temples, community groups and all sorts of individuals. A woman came to see me a couple of weeks ago and said, “You are opposed to the sell-off of the Royal Mail, aren’t you?” When I said that I was, she said, “Well, on that basis you should also be opposed to gay marriage.” I did not quite follow the logic of that argument either, but she had the right to lobby me, and she did so, albeit in a novel way.
	What worries me is when large concentrations of unaccountable wealth and power are brought to bear in the lobbying industry. Funnily enough, Jonathan Aitken said something similar when he was an MP and large business consortiums were lobbying for the contract to build the Channel tunnel. At that time lobbying was in full swing, and he—surprisingly in the light of subsequent events—said:
	“What worries me most is that usually lobbying is genuine in the sense that it stems from little interest groups and concerned citizens. Here we see the Panzer divisions of big business, their heavy artillery and tanks trampling over all the small people’s interests which I want to see better defended.”
	Most of us would probably want to see those interests better defended and certainly the Prime Minister seemed to want to see that three years ago when he said that lobbying would be the “next big scandal” to hit British politics. Lobbying has been the perennial scandal in British politics within living memory and probably before that, too.
	The Prime Minister’s reference to lobbying was three years ago and since then we have seen two private Members’ Bills. One was in my name, and I offered it to the Leader of the House as a Government Bill, but he was a bit shy about taking it on. The other was in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty). We also saw a Government consultation followed by countless commitments from various Ministers that a Bill would be produced, as we are always told, “in the near future.” Last year, the then Parliamentary Secretary, the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), promised a Bill before he was moved in the reshuffle. His successor, the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Norwich North (Miss Smith), is on the Treasury Bench and has, I believe, promised a Bill twice on the Floor of the House—but there is still no Bill.
	The Prime Minister has repeatedly promised a Bill in Prime Minister’s questions over the past three years and after the last lobbying scandal a few weeks ago, the Deputy Prime Minister promised what he called “head to toe” political reform, including a register of lobbyists. That was on 3 June. I have no idea what he meant by that, but I suspect that he did not have much more of an idea what he meant either—he never normally does.
	We still have no Bill, yet the scandals come regularly and frequently. Only last year, the treasurer of the Tory party, Peter Cruddas—we will all remember this—had to resign after promising access to the Prime Minister
	for a fee of £250,000. Months before that, Tim Collins, a not particularly lamented Member of this House, promised access to just about everybody and anybody in the Government.
	We can go back before that. I have mentioned lobbying scandals in living memory, but probably the doyenne of political lobbyists from the 1930s and 1940s up until the 1970s was Commander Christopher Powell. His name is probably not familiar now, but years ago he was very well known and for a number of years he had an office in the House of Commons. It sounds extraordinary today that a political lobbyist who represented all sorts of clients should have an office in this place, but he did for quite a long time.
	Members might remember the scandals attached to Ian Greer in the 1980s, which eventually made the front pages of just about the entire national press as well as the broadcast media in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Let us be balanced: there was also the cash for access scandal that involved Derek Draper, another person who is not particularly lamented by Opposition Members—at least, I hope he is not. I can say that with some passion, having dealt with him years ago.
	As I said earlier, I by no means condemn the political lobbying industry. In fact, I suspect that most lobbyists do a decent job, do it honestly and are perfectly prepared to be transparent about it, but there is always the temptation to cross certain lines unless accountability and transparency are built into the system.

Barry Sheerman: Speaker after speaker has talked about the importance of openness, transparency and accountability. I absolutely agree with that, but does my hon. Friend agree that we should also allow the little person, not just the well-heeled and well-suited person, to lobby? Lobbying should be open to everyone; the problem is that too often those who can afford to pay a lot of money can lobby more effectively.

John Cryer: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question, but I think I covered that at the beginning of my speech. Most of us these days hold regular advice surgeries—for me, and, probably, for most right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House such surgeries are a weekly business.
	The days when MPs never went near their constituencies and did not regard themselves as constituency Members are long gone. There was once a national MP for Blackpool called Walter de Frece who, despite the fact that he was the Member for Blackpool, never went near the place. In fact, he could not find it on a map. He struggled to find Britain on a map, because he lived in Monte Carlo. He came to Britain twice a year for the Budget debate and for Ascot, yet he was elected for years and years and was regarded as a successful constituency MP. While he was here, he would get a pile of House of Commons notepaper and sign the bottom, and then his secretary would fill in the rest. It sounds extraordinary, but because he managed to reply to a few letters—this shows how things have changed—he was regarded as a particularly brilliant constituency MP. Nowadays, that has changed beyond all recognition—not even in the safest seat could an MP from any party get away with such behaviour.
	Let me return to the demands that I think the register should place on lobbyists. The criterion that it should only cover third-party lobbyists is unfair on the third-party lobbying industry. In-house lobbyists—that covers all sorts of organisations and companies—should be forced to provide information, which, as I said when I intervened on the Leader of the House, should include financial information. Big companies, wealthy organisations and even wealthy individuals can spend millions on lobbying, and that sort of information should be available.

Graham Allen: I am enjoying my hon. Friend’s speech and learning a bit of parliamentary history, too. Does he accept that the work of the Select Committee could be a starting point in defining what a lobbyist is as well as who is in and who is out? The Committee has suggested that anyone who is in a paid, professional role of lobbying should be covered. That would include in-house lobbyists, of course, as well as trade associations, trade unionists—that answers the point made by the hon. Member for Carlisle (John Stevenson)—think-tanks, campaign groups, charities and many others who would be required to register. Does he agree that getting the definition right is the starting point of a good Bill?

John Cryer: That is crucial. The definition in my Bill covered anyone who lobbied “for commercial gain”, which is similar. The starting point that my hon. Friend suggests is perfectly reasonable and would, I suspect, cover all the relevant companies, associations, trade associations and trade unions, as well as the big NGOs and people who hire third-party lobbyists or who have in-house lobbyists. Most trade unions and federations have in-house lobbyists, which is fair enough.
	The important principle is that we must get transparency into the system. We are talking about a big industry; lobbying in this country is a successful industry worth £2 billion. There is no reason why it cannot continue to flourish and be successful as long as it is open and transparent, so that we know exactly what lobbyists are doing, who they are meeting and what sort of resources are being spent on achieving their aims.

John Thurso: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (John Cryer). Let me pick up on his last point: what we are after is transparency. I think there is agreement across the House on the need for transparency and to ensure that big business, big money and big power are accountable in politics. Today’s debate is very much about how best to try to achieve that or, at least, to find a starting point.
	I was grateful that the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) began, as many other Members have, by stressing the importance of good lobbying and the fact that we in Parliament cannot do our jobs without a degree of lobbying. Members have obviously mentioned their constituents and, like the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead, I have regular surgeries across 3,800 square miles. I travelled 207 miles last weekend to do surgeries at diametrically opposite ends of the constituency, celebrating national care homes day by visiting all the registered homes in the constituency.
	At my constituency surgery in Alness, a lady came to ask me about the regulations for herbalists. I have written to the Minister on her behalf and I consider that to be absolutely the kind of thing I should be doing as a constituency MP. On another level, as a member of the Treasury Committee and a former member of the now completed Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards, I have received a considerable amount of evidence from a wide range of bodies. It is sometimes difficult to distinguish whether they are giving me evidence or lobbying me. I am absolutely certain that in both cases my ability to have a reasoned discussion with the witnesses who have appeared before me has depended on my ability to access different points of view and different thoughts coming from different parts of the financial services industry.
	It is right that we should be open to lobbying in the sense that we should hear what different people have to say. Our job is to assess what is said and come to a reasonable decision in our deliberations, whether in Select Committee or when considering legislation. As sometimes happens, the tendency to dismiss lobbyists and lobbying as a wrong process is to misunderstand how Parliament should work.
	We are really talking about access to power for the purposes of diverting what power might otherwise do. Part of the problem that we will have with the legislation is working out where power is. With Ministers, it is pretty straightforward. If I go and lobby the Secretary of State for Energy about what is happening at Dounreay, it is pretty clear why I have gone to see him. If Babcock does the same, it is also pretty clear what is happening. The problem is when people have access to those in power in a way that is not revealed. An example was given this morning when Sir Mervyn King made his last appearance before the Treasury Select Committee. The Chairman asked him a question about lessons learned. He said that one of the most important things was that the Prudential Regulation Authority, the body that will control the banks, had the support of Ministers and Parliament such that the kind of lobbying that took place in the past—when bankers went to their supervisors to ask for a lighter judgment on supervision and the telephone calls he mentioned to No. 11 and sometimes No. 10—could not happen. That is what we really have to seek to expose.

Thomas Docherty: The hon. Gentleman cited Babcock. That is a prime example that shows why the Bill must cover everyone. Babcock is a multinational company that has a rail division, a nuclear division and a defence division. Simply to say that Babcock has been to see a Minister provides no transparency. So it has to be all lobbyists.

John Thurso: I am going to disagree with the hon. Gentleman in a moment for a simple reason. In relation to visiting a Minister, the key is not in the Bill or in any legislation that we might pass. The key is the ministerial code; the key is the fact that the visits by that company or any other company will be published. I agree with hon. Members who said that there should be more information; wider detail should be published about meetings. At the moment, the quarterly register often just says “general discussion”, and that is not good enough. I urge those who are responsible for the ministerial
	code to look at toughening it up in some way and perhaps publishing the code a little more often than quarterly. Such things could be done tomorrow; they do not require legislation.
	The second point is the difference between in-house and third-party lobbyists. I think we are all going in the same direction, but it seems to me that one has to start somewhere. To me, the third-party lobbyists are a good place to start. As the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) said, it is better to make a start than to go for perfection. If Oxfam turns up to see the Secretary of State for International Development, it is pretty obvious what is going to be talked about. It is far more important that when Messrs Grabit and Nickit turn up to lobby on behalf of an unknown firm, we have a registration of who they are and what they do. That is far more important than making every single company that has someone in house working for them register that fact.
	In my party’s 2001 conference motion on regulation of professional parliamentary lobbying, which I am sure was on everyone’s lips at the time, we said:
	“No parliamentarian … at Westminster should be a director of, an employee of, receive any reward from or hold a stake in any of the duly registered professional parliamentary lobbying companies. … A statutory register of such professional lobbying firms should be set up and supervised by the Commissioner on Parliamentary Standards.”
	In 2006, my colleague David Howarth, the then Member for Cambridge, sought to insert an amendment into the Companies Bill to cap the amount spent on lobbying. The then Government declined to accept it. So my party has a long history of seeking to do something about lobbying. The important thing now is to be clear who is doing the lobbying. That is why registering the professional lobbyists is so important.

Angus MacNeil: Is not one of the problems of the recent scandal not so much the lobbying but the payment of politicians, who may be part of the operation of that lobbying. It is not the lobbying per se; it is the payment, the money, the feeling of corruption.

John Thurso: I am delighted to welcome the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) to his place. That is something I touched on at the beginning of my remarks. He makes an important point. In the recent scandals involving a Member of this House and three Members of the other place, nothing in this Bill or any other Bill on lobbying would have changed anything. What they did is already against the rules. My advice to any Member of this House is that the day someone comes to them and says, “Would you like £24,000?”, they are being offered a sting. None of us is worth that amount.
	I was once almost the victim of a sting. A gentleman came to see me and asked me if I would chair his company. I said, “Yes, but first I need to do due diligence and see a set of accounts. Secondly, you have to look at my CV and see whether I have the skills you want. Thirdly, if it is ever anything to do with Parliament, I can have nothing whatever to do with it.” Needless to say, I never heard from him again.

Grahame Morris: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

John Thurso: I have taken two interventions so I would like to get to the end of my speech.
	I hope that the Bill will deal with third-party, non-party controlled expenditure and measures to regulate non-party actors who seek to influence elections. This touches on the whole question of the trade unions. The best way is simply for the trade unions to be treated in the same way as any other body according to the third-party, non-party controlled expenditure rules. If we had those rules, requirements made of trade unions would be made by way of alterations to the third-party controlled expenditure rules rather than to any trade union rules, which is absolutely the right way forward.
	It is right that we look at lobbying and make sure that we have a register. It is too late for cross-party talks. We tried that with the House of Lords and look where it got us. I am scarred by that. We should just get on with it and make sure that it happens.
	My inclination is towards pre-legislative scrutiny. I doubt that it is going to happen, but the Chair of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee might take a leaf out of the book of the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie). He went ahead with it himself on the Treasury Committee and I am sure that his Committee will just go ahead and do it. It will probably be an invaluable report. I look forward to supporting the Government in the Lobby and making sure that matters come to fruition and we see a Bill as soon as possible.

Helen Jones: We have heard several interesting speeches, especially from my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), the Chair of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, that have tried to grapple with how we define and register lobbyists. The fundamental point, as everyone in the House knows, is that one of the biggest political problems of our time is the loss of faith in politics and politicians, and we have only to walk the streets of our constituencies to see that. People feel that they are not listened to and that they have no way of influencing events. They might have some regard for their own Member of Parliament—indeed, polls show that people often do—but they feel that the big decisions are taken elsewhere, in a place where their views are not heard—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) wants to make an intervention, I shall allow him to do so.

Angus MacNeil: I just wanted to suggest that the case the hon. Lady makes is exactly why we want independence —thank you very much.

Helen Jones: The hon. Gentleman will find that the polling in Scotland is no different from that elsewhere. There is a loss of faith in politics and politicians in many developed countries, and it ill behoves him to make cheap political points about that serious issue, with which we all must deal. People think that there is a distinct political class of people who move in and out of lobbyists, think-tanks and Parliament. I know that that is not true and that there are many hon. Members from
	diverse backgrounds—obviously not those in the Cabinet—but we have to bear responsibility for allowing that perception to exist. That is why dealing with lobbying is important, so that is one of the vital things—not the only one—that we must do to open up Parliament. If we continue to allow people to have the impression that some individuals have privileged access and may buy the right to influence legislation, we are digging our own graves. It is not lobbying itself that is wrong, as many hon. Members have said, but lobbying behind the scenes when people do not know about it.

Jonathan Edwards: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Helen Jones: In a moment.
	There has been promise after promise on lobbying, yet nothing has been done. We have been reminded that it was the Prime Minister who said that lobbying was
	“the next big scandal waiting to happen”.
	That was followed by further words, but no action. The Conservatives did not commit to introducing a statutory register in their election manifesto, despite the fact that when the Prime Minister made his famous “Rebuilding trust in politics” speech, he said:
	“it’s time we shone the light of transparency on lobbying and forced our politics to come clean”—
	it has taken a bit of time to do the washing.
	The coalition agreement contained a promise to introduce a statutory register of lobbying and the former Minister for constitutional affairs, the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), promised that he would publish proposals in January 2011, but then everything went quiet until recently. It seemed that no one was responsible at all.

Chloe Smith: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Helen Jones: In a moment.
	The latest scandal forced the Government into action, but their proposals that we have heard about so far are full of holes. It appears that they will cover only a narrow section of third-party lobbyists, but that is simply not good enough. As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North, only about 100 organisations would be covered, yet the UK Public Affairs Council defines lobbying as
	“in a professional capacity, attempting to influence, or advising those who wish to influence, the UK Government, Parliament”—
	and so on.

Jon Trickett: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Third-party lobbyists that operate legitimately and ethically feel threatened by the idea that the Government will leave open an enormous barn door for in-house lobbyists. There will be a devastating impact on third-party companies if their client organisations begin to hide away what they were doing by taking on more lobbyists in house. Will she comment on that point?

Helen Jones: My hon. Friend makes a valid point about who should be included on the register and the importance of getting the definitions right. Many people have referred to lobbying by constituents, and any
	constituent has an absolute right of access to their Member of Parliament. My constituents are not slow about making their views heard, as I suspect is true of those of other hon. Members, but that is different from commercial lobbying, so the legislation must make that clear.
	We have to deal with those who are directly employed lobbyists, but they would be allowed to carry on as before under the Government’s plans. What would happen to big firms such as Capita, Grant Thornton and PricewaterhouseCoopers that operate across government in many ways, but include lobbying among their functions? Legislation cannot work unless a code of conduct is attached to it. Parts of the industry already have a voluntary code, but without a code of conduct, there is no real point of having a register, because one then cannot deal with breaches of ethics, including by removing people from the register. Without full publication of details and meetings, lobbying will still be shrouded in secrecy because people will not know what is going on.

Angus MacNeil: rose—

Helen Jones: I have given way to the hon. Gentleman once, so I hope that he will forgive me if I continue.
	The fairly shabby little proposal before us is a reaction to a particular story, rather than an attempt to get things right. It is important that we have proposals that command cross-party support in the House and that, if possible, they are subjected to pre-legislative scrutiny. In my time in the House, a lot of bad legislation has been passed in a hurry, but a lot of legislation has been made better as a result of pre-legislative scrutiny, so I do not understand why the Government are shying away from that process. We need to get the proposals right for not just this Parliament, but future Parliaments, and we need a clear definition of “professional lobbying”, a clear code of conduct and strong sanctions for breaches of that code. Why on earth are the Government so reluctant to go down that road?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am in almost entire agreement with the hon. Lady that we need to move at a steady and sensible pace so that we reach a proper conclusion. Can she explain why Government and Opposition Front Benchers—as expressed in the motion and the amendment —want to get everything done by the summer recess?

Helen Jones: I do not think that Labour Members are arguing for that at all. We want a full and comprehensive proposal, not a half-baked one that covers only part of the industry and that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) said, could damage part of the industry. If a register is to end bad practices, it has to be backed by proper sanctions. We know that transparency is essential, so why on earth are we not going down that road? After all, the Prime Minister kept saying that sunlight was the “best disinfectant”—I wonder what happened to that phrase.
	Even those involved in the industry are unenthusiastic, to say the least. The director general of the Public Relations Consultants Association called the proposals “unfit for purpose”. The chair of the National Council for Voluntary Organisations said:
	“Basically it’s so weak now there’s no point in us joining it”.
	Surely that is not good in the long run for the Government —of any colour—for Parliament and for the reputation of politicians as a whole, so I urge the Government to think again. They need to understand what is at stake, which is no less than the reputation of politicians and the political class as a whole.
	If we are to get it right, we must try to come to an agreement. It has been said from the Front Bench that we have no problem with regulating trade union lobbying activities. However, the Government should not confuse the regulation of lobbying with the funding of political parties. By all means let us have a debate on that, but it will have to include the role of commercial companies and their donations, organisations such as the Midlands Industrial Council, and so on. To try to push the two together to attack one lot of political funding but not another is not a sign of serious government; it is a sign of a Government wanting to score cheap political points, rather than to sort out the problem, and I hope they will not do that.

Harriett Baldwin: I support the amendment tabled by the Prime Minister and his right hon. Friends. From my point of view, lobbying is entirely healthy and integral to our democracy. This is a point that we have heard from a range of speakers this afternoon. I like to point out to my constituents that lobbying is named after Central Lobby. Central Lobby has given its name to this activity because any constituent can come to Central Lobby while Parliament is sitting, fill out a green card and summon their MP to the Lobby so that they can bend their MP’s ear on the issue that matters particularly to them. We should be looking to encourage and support lobbying and try to remove from it the taint that has suddenly emerged, as though it were intrinsically bad and liable to corruption.
	One of the things that is so effective in our democracy is that most MPs are available to their constituents, to listen to them lobbying on a wide range of concerns. Every Friday I have an open surgery where people can come to raise issues with me. We should be proud of lobbying in our democracy. It enriches all our activities as parliamentarians.
	I am pleased to hear the progress that the Government have made on transparency. I welcome the fact that all Conservative Cabinet Ministers list the details of the meetings they hold with a wide range of organisations, and in particular the fact that they name the private companies which employ public affairs representatives to come and lobby on behalf of their organisations. That is an advance in terms of transparency and I should have thought that the shadow Cabinet would welcome the opportunity to show that level of transparency as well.
	Many of the issues being raised today are ones that we as MPs can address ourselves—[Interruption.] I am being heckled from the Opposition Front Bench. Yes, I am a Parliamentary Private Secretary. I have taken it upon myself to publish all the meetings I have with paid public affairs professionals and organisations that lobby me, either in the constituency or here. We as parliamentarians are entirely free to do that, and we can
	take the opportunity to shed some transparency and show our constituents that lobbying is not only open to them but is very much part of the work of an MP.
	In the first month that I did that, I highlighted the fact that I had had meetings with, for example, the National Farmers Union. NFU representatives are extremely effective lobbyists on behalf of farmers in my constituency. They are extremely knowledgeable in a specialised area, and it is very important that an MP in an agricultural constituency such as mine listens to what they have to say on a wide range of agricultural issues. I agree that when I meet a paid public affairs professional, whether for a public affairs firm or employed by an organisation, I can reveal to my constituents that I have had such a meeting. That is not something that we as MPs are not able to do.
	That brings me to the main point that I want to make in this argument. There has been much discussion today about what the Government ought to be doing, but as we heard from the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), the Chair of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, there is much that we as parliamentarians can do to ensure that the public are aware of what we do, know when we meet with lobbyists and understand that lobbying is an inherent part of our democracy. That transparency could be emphasised in some of the other things that Parliament does. For example, not everybody knows that all-party parliamentary groups must publish who is sponsoring that group. They also have to publish when they work with an MP to take a room—the House of Commons accounts must show who hired the room.
	Transparency in relation to early-day motions would also be healthy. I wonder whether colleagues will support me on this. I can honestly say that I have so far resisted signing a single early-day motion. We have seen how they are sometimes used by lobbyists as a way of showing that they have done something in Parliament, when in reality it is not a particularly effective tool. Some colleagues are more enthusiastic about early-day motions than others. That is another area where we as a Parliament and as MPs could do more to show transparency.
	What do we say about organisations such as 38 Degrees? That organisation has done a wonderful job in bringing to our democratic attention a wide range of views held across the e-mail communication channel. Given that it plays such an active role in encouraging our constituents to lobby us on a wide range of issues, it would be interesting and informative to know how such an organisation is able to pay public affairs professionals and others to encourage constituents to write to their MPs. That is the level of transparency for which we as parliamentarians could take responsibility, rather than just relying on the Government to pass legislation. Such transparency is a matter for us as MPs to consider. We can do these things as individuals. We do not need to rely on legislation.

Marcus Jones: Does my hon. Friend agree that lobbyists, particularly in the charitable sector, should show some responsibility? Quite often I receive a fistful of postcards from a particular charity, purportedly from my constituents who have signed these cards, but when I write back to those constituents with a response to the postcard campaign, they often
	say, “I don’t know anything about this”, and we find out that somebody’s family has put in four or five cards on behalf of other people. A little more responsibility needs to be shown in that respect.

Harriett Baldwin: My hon. Friend makes an important point. I have had the same experience. I then have to dig into my files and discover the original document. I send that back to the constituent, who is often quite surprised to discover that they have been encouraged to lobby me in that way.

Thomas Docherty: I find myself agreeing with the hon. Lady. Does she accept that what her own Government are proposing would not cover charities or organisations like 38 Degrees?

Harriett Baldwin: What I accept is that the Government are the ones taking the steps to publish meetings with organisations that represent themselves with their public affairs professionals. The Government are doing much more in the way of transparency than the Opposition were able to do in 13 years of power. I would love to see members of the shadow Cabinet publish details of their meetings, and I strongly hope that as a result of my persuasive remarks this afternoon, those are steps that the Opposition will soon take.

Angus MacNeil: The hon. Lady says that the Government have taken great steps on transparency, so will she encourage them to publish the pre-1997 papers relating to devolution legislation, which should be open and transparent for the people of Scotland? I look forward to her support.

Harriett Baldwin: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am a fervent supporter of us all being better off together, so I will support whatever is in the interest of our doing that.
	The point I am trying to make is that there is an awful lot that Members of Parliament can do as individuals to help advance the cause of transparency. We should not all sit and wait until legislation is passed. We can take some responsibility in being open and transparent. I look forward to the day when that includes the meetings of the shadow Cabinet.

Alan Whitehead: Like many hon. Members, I am lobbied every day, by my electorate and by people who have an interest in the things that I am interested in as an MP. It is a perfectly honourable process. Provided that it is carried out in an honourable, straightforward and transparent way, lobbying adds to the substance of Parliament and does not detract from it.
	However, there is rather more to the issue than simply whether lobbying is carried out in a transparent way. It is a question not just of whether sunlight is the best disinfectant, but whether in addition to sunlight we need Sunlight soap in order to scrub the process clean. That is what the public remain concerned about. As hon. Members have said, it is not just about the transparency of lobbying, but about the way in which it is carried out,
	the secrecy of substantial elements of it and the influence that is brought to bear as a result of certain arrangements that lobbyists can make regarding resources, access and various other things. Those concerns relate not only to third-party lobbyists but are across the board.
	Perhaps we ought to apply a comparative principle in devising what we want to achieve by having a register of lobbyists. If we think about it for a moment, we realise that what we—the parties set up in this House—do in seeking votes is lobby the electorate, and we must do so in a reasonable, bounded and temperate way. A number of sanctions have been laid down in law for a very long time to ensure that lobbying of the electorate is restrained and that we do not go beyond those bounds. They are known as the electoral offences.
	There is the offence of bribery. As far as lobbying is concerned, if a Member of this House was asked, “Would you like to be a director of my company? I’ll give you £24,000”, that is a very straightforward approximation of the offence of bribery as it relates to this House. There is also the offence of treating, which means saying to the electorate, “I’ll buy you a slap-up dinner, and drinks at the bar are on us, provided you vote for us.” The parallel, as far as our affairs are concerned, would be offering a week’s holiday or substantial trips around the world in order to exercise some advantage.

Grahame Morris: That is a really important point, because there is a distinction between what happens in this place and what happens in local government, for example. If I was serving on a planning committee and owned a building firm, it would not be good enough for me simply to say, “I declare an interest”; I would not be able to take any part. All that happens here is that people declare an interest, but they are still taking money from private health care companies and then voting through the Health and Social Care Bill.

Alan Whitehead: My hon. Friend emphasises the power of Sunlight soap in other parts of the body politic, as opposed to our proceedings.
	There are two other main electoral offences that relate to our lobbying of the electorate, and the Secretary of State has referred to one in relation to the content of his proposed Bill. He said that we want to know who is lobbying us and that the Government will legislate to fill that gap. That is the offence of personation. We need to know who is exercising the vote. If we were to try to defraud the electorate by having someone vote in place of the person who really had the vote, an electoral offence would be committed.
	The final major electoral offence is that of undue influence. That is the parallel offence that is wholly absent from the proposed legislation as it relates to our proceedings. Undue influence is not about whether someone is paid or given a weekend away, or whether someone else stands in their place; it is about someone exercising various means of persuading another person to vote for them that are beyond the cause of reasonable lobbying. That seems to me to be the crux of the issue. The proposals do not provide for an overall register of all lobbyists, with sanctions and the ability to throw people off it, properly to take account of the question of undue influence in the lobbying process.
	I am sorry that that appears to be the way the proposed legislation is proceeding, because it could easily be fixed by some fairly brief discussions between the parties. After all, this is a matter that affects not just one particular party or Government. The legislation needs to stand the test of different Governments of different parties. It is an issue that concerns all parties and this House. Therefore, it seems to me that above all the legislation must be proceeded with on the basis of what the parties think is the right way forward.
	It is shocking that the Government have taken a year to respond to the all-party Select Committee inquiry on lobbying and what can be done about it. That is way out of line with what is normally expected of Government responses to Select Committee reports. That ought to be rectified immediately. Pre-legislative scrutiny of what is proposed would not derail the legislation unduly. For example, the Energy and Climate Change Committee was recently given six weeks to consider the entire draft Energy Bill before it came to the House. Pre-legislative scrutiny would give a vital opportunity to get something that works across the House.
	I am a little disappointed that much of this afternoon’s debate has been something of a knockabout rather than about principle. I have tried to inject into the proceedings a little focus on what we are really about, which is principles for legislation. Between us, we must ensure that the legislation works for the future. If that takes a few weeks of discussions between parties to get it right, and if there is a little give and take with regard to how it will work, that will be a good thing for the House. If it ensures that undue influence is not exercised in the House by lobbyists, if it is clear about who should be included in the rules, and if the public are confident that the right people are included in those rules, that, too, would be a gain for us all.
	I hope that the Government will not decide this afternoon that this is about bashing the Opposition’s motion and getting their amendment through; it is about trying to get something through that is good for us all. If that means both sides laying the motion on the Table in order to proceed, perhaps that would be a good thing for the House. I think that above all we need to get the legislation on lobbying right so that everyone benefits in future. It is not about one party scoring a few points from the other in the short term.

Simon Hart: Today of all days, I should draw Members’ attention to my register entry on this topic.
	At the beginning of the debate, there seemed little chance of consensus, but as it has gone on issues have emerged on which Members on both sides of the House can be pleased that progress has been made. We have, however, either underplayed or glossed over three specific points, the first of which is obviously one of definition. Despite numerous speeches on the topic, we are still pretty unclear about precisely who should or might be caught by the proposals. Secondly, we have, I believe, slightly underplayed the positive contribution made by lobbyists to many of our lives—not only in the House,
	but in our constituencies. Thirdly, we have made some progress, albeit not much, on how the matter can be properly resolved.
	We need to give the greatest care and longest time to the problem of definition. We have touched on the role of pressure groups, which include charities, as well as industry representatives—a phrase that could cover a multitude of sins. Local groups could be well funded or well advised or simply put themselves together on the spur of the moment to lobby us in our constituencies on a particular interest or issue. The words “professional lobbyist” have been used without much qualification during the debate. More clarity on who would come under that description is crucial if we are to get things right.

Gareth Thomas: I share the hon. Gentleman’s concern about the need for clarity from the Government about definition. Has he seen the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee’s report, especially its recommendation that the Government should
	“clarify whether its definition of lobbying includes lobbying advice, or only direct representation, to avoid confusion regarding who should, and should not register as a lobbyist”?

Simon Hart: The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to hear that I have seen the report; as I am still a member of that Committee, from time to time I read our reports. I take his point, but if he will forgive me I will come back to it in my closing remarks. If I forget, no doubt he will intervene.

Jonathan Edwards: Does my constituency neighbour agree that we also need to look at the relationship between the Government and big business? Earlier this year, the World Development Movement produced a document stating that a third of Ministers had links to finance or energy companies involved in the exploitation of fossil fuels. We have not seen much movement towards creating a low carbon economy in the UK. Does the hon. Gentleman understand why people are concerned?

Simon Hart: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, and I entirely respect his view. I sometimes think we underplay the obstacles that outside interest groups have to go through to get to and influence Ministers. We are talking about creating not only new legislation, but legislation on top of an already stringent set of rules. Again, I am not trying to duck the issue, but I will come back to the hon. Gentleman’s point when I come to how we should resolve all these differences.
	I turn to what I call “donor lobbyists”, the strongest part of whose argument appears to be the strength of their bank balances. I am interested that the Labour party has made concessions on that, particularly with regard to the influence of trade unions. For some time, a concern among Members on the Government Benches has been how we could have a register of lobbyists that did not include everybody. Members on both sides of the House have made progress on that during this debate.
	I shall make only two further points, the first of which is our strange obsession with what we seem to call these days “professional lobbyists” without any real qualification of what they might be, although the Chairman of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee
	went some distance towards that. Plenty of people consider themselves to be professional lobbyists but have many other strings to their bows and do many other things for the organisations they represent. Are they or might they be considered professional lobbyists under the proposals? We have yet to find out.
	It strikes me as odd that we seem to gloss over some of the big organisations. Tesco has been mentioned, probably unfairly, as an organisation that might not fall under the proposals because everybody knows what it stands for. Actually, that is not right. Tesco might come into this building to lobby on fuel prices, planning, food labelling or any number of issues that come under its jurisdiction. We have to be careful about drawing some random arbitrary line above which some people go. Rather than re-establish public confidence in what we do, we could end up causing great disappointment to those interested in the proposals and do ourselves considerable harm in the process. Likewise, there are plenty of well financed, organised and documented pressure groups—campaigning against or in favour of major wind farm developments or things such as HS2—that are unquestionably engaged in very sophisticated lobbying.
	It will not surprise hon. Members to hear that I want more lobbyists; I think they are a good thing and bring great variety and strength as long as we treat them with sufficient recognition and responsibility. Doing anything that might deter people from being able to lobby us pretty well however they wanted would be a counter-productive road down which we should not go.
	We seem to have overlooked some existing legislation—the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Whenever I have wanted to know what has been going on in the darkened corners of ministerial offices, I have simply put in a freedom of information request and have probably acquired most of the information I have wanted about who is meeting whom and on what basis. Let us not reinvent something that already exists and to which every member of the public has perfect access.
	Lastly, I want to touch on two things. First, there is the positive contribution of lobbying, which some of us seem to have slightly overlooked. Personally, my life would grind to an absolute halt if lobbyists representing all sorts of different groups did not supply me with lots of useful, expert information on a range of subjects and completely free to the taxpayer. If we had to get our offices to pay for that information, the taxpayer might have something to say about that. Let us not for one minute make it more difficult for responsible organisations —charities, industry pressure groups or anything else—to provide us with a constant stream of high quality information, which makes us more likely to produce decent legislation.
	Having read the Government’s amendment to the Opposition proposal, I am confident that we are pointing in the right direction on resolutions. We need to avoid reforms that are simply a partial list of names on a piece of paper. We must not over-regulate a responsible industry; that might unintentionally make the life of the charitable sector, in which I have some interest, all the more difficult. If we end up in a situation where people who donate to charities or contribute to charitable activity think that their donations may become the subject of political debate or some public declaration, that might make them, for all sorts of sensible reasons, much less inclined to make their generous contributions to those
	charities. If the consequence of our trying to resolve a political issue in this building is that we end up deterring people from supporting valuable charities, we will not have done a good job in the eyes of the public, but a very bad one.
	The issue gets to the heart of the complexities of the debate. I hope we can reflect on the views held by Members on both sides of the House, and particularly the view of the Chair of the Select Committee. We should turn a deaf ear to calls for great haste to answer the question of why we have not done something.
	We can see from a handful of the contributions this afternoon that we could legislate in great haste and make an absolute horlicks of this. It would be much more sensible for us to work our way steadily through the issues raised, particularly that of definition. If we do not do that, rather than having been able to tick a box and sign off an aspect of the coalition agreement, we will have created a situation in which, when the next lobbying scandal comes along—and it unquestionably will—people will ask what the register was all about and why it did not prevent the scandal from occurring. We will have to look them in the eye and say, “Of course it never stood a chance”.
	We must take time. The Opposition proposal, dare I say it, is a little cynical; the Government amendment makes a great deal more sense. The Government are right not to be bullied or rushed into producing something hastily that proves incomplete. I have no difficulty, with all my history, in recommending that those who are interested should vote against the Opposition proposal and in favour of the Government amendment.

Grahame Morris: There have been some interesting and thoughtful contributions to this debate. We must acknowledge the Prime Minister’s perception when he predicted that lobbying would be
	“the next big scandal waiting to happen”.
	However, despite the bluster and sticking out of chests on the Government Benches, the coalition has had three years to bring in legislation, but a register of lobbyists was again noticeably absent from the recent Queen’s Speech. Let us be honest: it was only the most recent scandal exposed in the “Panorama” documentary that led the Government to consider introducing a Bill before the summer.
	Let me read out a quote:
	“It is vital that we act quickly and decisively to restore the reputation of politics. Too much unacceptable behaviour has gone unchecked for too long, from excessive expenses to sleazy lobbying practices. The people of Britain have looked on in horror as revelations have stripped away the dignity of Parliament, leaving millions of voters detached from the political process, devoid of trust in the political classes, and disillusioned with our system of government.”
	That is a statement from the Conservative party manifesto; it is not very often that I agree with anything I read in there. That was the commitment that the Conservatives made in recognising the problem and that something needed to be done about it. So what has happened? We have had three years of Conservative-led coalition government and we have seen precious little action in relation to that commitment. We saw the former Foreign Secretary resign over the Werritty scandal and the cash-for-access case in which the Conservative party treasurer,
	Peter Cruddas, who was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (John Cryer), offered “premier league” access to the Prime Minister for £250,000 a year. It is not a distinguished record. I am not shirking our responsibilities. The documentary that was broadcast quite recently was shocking. It related to one Member from this place and three from the other place, two of whom were members of my party. They should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves. Some sanction needs to be applied against such individuals. Clearly, there is the ultimate sanction for a Member of the House of Commons, but for those in the House of Lords there is no really effective sanction.
	There are a number of things we have not done. Despite the warm words from Government Front Benchers, we have not curbed the improper influence of lobbyists, changed the ministerial code to bar Ministers and officials from meeting MPs on issues where the MP is paid to lobby, or required companies to report their annual spending on lobbying. I think that a Liberal Democrat Member referred to that; indeed, it was a promise that the Lib Dems made.
	There can be no trust in politics when the public believe that politicians are for hire to the highest bidder. After the most recent scandal, all Members of Parliament holding directorships, advisory positions and consultancy roles are viewed with suspicion, whether that is justified or not. I want to put down a marker about second jobs and MPs spending in excess of 20 hours a week working outside Parliament. That raises questions about whose interests they are really serving. I do not have time to work 20 hours outside this place; I put all my efforts into representing my constituents. I do not know how Members can take up directorships and consultancies. That must put a question mark into the minds of their constituents; if not, it should.
	All Governments have been tainted by the revolving door of former Ministers and special advisers who, in retirement, find themselves in lucrative jobs with companies they once dealt with as Ministers or advisers. That point was well made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) in his Westminster Hall Adjournment debate on 2 November 2011. In my opinion, this is nothing short of corruption—the same kind of thing that we would condemn in other countries across the world.
	The cosy relationship between some politicians and lobbyists was clear to see when the Prime Minister invited professional corporate and private health care lobbyist Nick Seddon into the heart of Government. Whose interests will Nick Seddon serve following his previous roles as a deputy director of Reform, which is listed as a free-market think-tank extensively funded by private health care and insurance companies, and as head of communications at private health care company Circle? Does that name ring any bells with anybody? At the heart of Government, corporate interests are over-represented to the detriment of the public. We do not want to be running a corporate plutocracy in the United Kingdom. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) for his article in today’s Morning Star. It is an excellent piece that makes some terrific points about the excesses of corporate influence in the United States.
	I recently witnessed this kind of corporate influence in action during the east coast main line debate. No matter how much public opposition exists against the privatisation of rail services, a Government who have surrounded themselves with advisers and lobbyists with corporate interests and connections remain fundamentally wedded to a policy of open competition in all public services, prioritising profits over people. Where is the voice of the public being represented?
	I am sure that Members in all parts of the House will, like me, have received many hundreds of e-mails and representations from constituents regarding the Government’s proposals on plain cigarette packaging. I found it absolutely extraordinary that within weeks of the appointment of professional lobbyist Lynton Crosby, who had apparently lobbied against plain tobacco packaging in Australia, as the Conservatives’ election strategist, there was a change in policy. The links with private health care companies are wide and extensive in this House. As I said in an intervention, the Our NHS campaign reports that one in four Conservative Lords and at least 58 Conservative MPs have recent or current financial links to companies or individuals connected to private health care. Over 30 of the companies who are listed as corporate partners of Reform have recent or current financial links to Lords and MPs.
	It is not the miners but corporate lobbyists at the heart of Government who are the enemy within. They undermine our democracy, which is increasingly becoming a plutocracy with access to Government and decision making going to the highest bidder and corporate interests at the expense of the public.

Damian Collins: I am following the hon. Gentleman’s argument carefully. I think that he needs to be careful, and the whole House needs to take care, in defining who lobbyists are and what their interests are. Several times he cited Reform, which is an independent think-tank with a cross-party board set up in the same way as many other think-tanks across politics, such as, in the past, the Institute for Public Policy Research and the Smith Institute, which have been aligned with the Labour party. That is very different from talking about someone who is a paid-for corporate lobbyist working for a professional lobbying company or an individual company. We must be careful about this.

Grahame Morris: I am grateful for that intervention. The point I am trying to make is that nothing is always as it first appears. Quite frequently, all-party groups are sponsored by pharmaceutical companies. Often, think-tanks with certain financial backers are coming up with certain policies, and when we look at who is funding them we can see why that is happening. Perhaps I could have selected a better example. If I was wrong, I acknowledge that.
	The overwhelming majority of lobbyists understand and even welcome the need for a statutory register. They understand that in a democracy, the Government need to be open to influence from all parts of society. I have always considered myself to be the voice of the unheard. There is nobody else to speak up for the people I represent. It is right that we should speak for the smallest community group as well as listening to the point of view of the largest commercial operator. We should hear
	from everyone, from individual citizens to multinationals. We want an engaged, interactive citizens’ democracy. Without robust statutory regulation, the perception will continue that big business, the powerful and the few are able to gain private access to the decision makers at the expense of everyone else.
	I hope that the motion will receive the support of the whole House, given its emphasis on cross-party negotiations, the implementation of a statutory register and a clear code of conduct that is backed by sanctions in the event of serious breaches of the code. I will leave it at that to give others a chance to speak.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: It is a great pleasure, as always, to follow the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris). I learned that the Morning Star still exists. I confess that I was unaware of that. I thought that it had gone with the Berlin wall and all that.
	As so often in this Chamber, we are not discussing a new problem. The issue of lobbying and undue influence goes back into the mists of time. Delving back not too far, who can forget Sir John Trevor, a former Speaker of the House who was expelled both from the speakership and from Parliament for accepting a 1,000 guinea bribe from the City of London to promote a Bill on orphanages? Interestingly, the Chairman of the Bill Committee, Mr Hungerford, received only 20 guineas for his service. He, too, was expelled from the House. I reflect that the Speaker was worth almost 40 times as much as the Chairman of a Committee. I wonder whether the relativities have changed in this more modern age.
	Sir John Trevor and Mr Hungerford were expelled by this House for being unduly lobbied. Interestingly, they were unduly lobbied by another arm of the state: the corporation of London. It is worth bearing it in mind that, contrary to what the hon. Member for Easington said, it is not only wicked businesses that are involved in lobbying; it is something that happens across society. Everyone has an axe to grind regarding the issues that face this House. They therefore come to us to lobby. In and of itself, that is a perfectly legitimate activity.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin) so rightly said, it is an historic right of every one of our constituents to come to Central Lobby, demand our presence and tell us their views on whatever subject is important to them. That is a wonderful historic right. It is a pity that people do not know about it and do not use it more. We ought to encourage our constituents to come and lobby us in that way. There is a nobility in lobbying that must not be lost in the midst of the discussion about what is, in effect, corruption. Let us try to use the terms differently and not allow lobbying to become a polite term for criminality, dishonesty and corruption.
	Within British politics, there are essentially two types of lobbying. There is the lobbying of Members of Parliament, which is perhaps the triumph of hope over experience, whereby people come to see somebody such as myself, a junior Back-Bench MP, and say that they want me to do this, that and the next thing and to change legislation, thinking that the Prime Minister and the Leader of the House hang on my every word. Sadly, I have to tell such people that that is not quite
	how it works. MPs have the ability to debate and argue, but not necessarily to change the course of the world. Then there is the lobbying of Ministers, who have a much greater and more direct Executive power—a decision-making power, rather than merely an influencing power. The two types of lobbying need to be regulated differently and separately.
	There is a difference between those on the Opposition Front Bench and the Government Front Bench. Opposition Front Benchers have the hope and possibly the expectation of power. Those on the Treasury Bench have the reality of power and lobbying them can have a direct influence on what is happening. They should therefore be subject to a higher standard of openness and transparency than Opposition Front Benchers, who ought to be entitled to their smoke-filled rooms, although as they are socialists, the rooms will have no smoke in them, because they do not approve of that sort of thing. You know what I mean, Mr Deputy Speaker.
	Given the difference between Government and Parliament, we need to legislate only for Government. Parliament has all the powers that it needs to regulate its own affairs, if only we had the courage to use them. We have a Committee of Privileges and a Committee on Standards. We are entitled to expel Members who misbehave. We may do so not according to a detailed set of rules, but according to whether we believe, as a House, that they have undermined the reputation of the House and have not behaved like honourable Members. Such a decision is not justiciable in any court in the land because we are the High Court of Parliament. The regulation of our own affairs is not challengeable in the other House, as was established by the Bradlaugh case, when an atheist was refused the right to sit in Parliament.
	We have the right as a Chamber to admit and expel Members. When Members abuse the rules, we ought to exercise that power and clear up politics directly ourselves. That does not require legislation to come through before the summer recess; it simply requires us to have the willpower and the backbone to do what we are able to do already.

Grahame Morris: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman’s flow. I compliment him on his speech. Will he clarify what the consequence is in the other place when peers commit a similar offence?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The House of Lords, when considering what it could do about the expenses scandal, discovered that it had the right to imprison a peer for a Session. It decided that it must therefore also have the power to suspend a peer for a Session. However, it may only do that Session by Session. It cannot expel a peer because a peerage comes from the sovereign, whereas our position in this House comes from the people to whom we can be sent back. To get rid of a peerage requires primary legislation. That was done in 1917 to remove a group of peers who were fighting for the Germans and the Austrians during the first world war. It is open to this House to do that with the other place. We may pass an Act of Parliament to remove a category of peers who have committed offences. The House of Lords itself can suspend peers Session by Session. It can repeat such a suspension if it believes that the offence is egregious enough.
	This House also has the power to punish individuals outside the House. If people are in contempt of Parliament, we have the ultimate power to imprison them. I am not proposing that we should use that power extensively, but if lobbyists try to bribe or corrupt Members of Parliament, it is not unreasonable that Parliament herself should impose the punishment on those lobbyists. That would be a matter of us regulating ourselves, using the power given to us by the British people, rather than farming it out, through legislation, to the courts to decide whether parliamentary privilege has been breached.

Damian Collins: When the Culture, Media and Sport Committee took evidence during the phone-hacking inquiry, we found that many of Parliament’s powers to summon and even imprison people for misleading Parliament or for being in contempt of Parliament are historical. It is not certain what their legal status is and whether they have been superseded by subsequent legislation.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The power of the House to regulate its own affairs is one of the fundamental building blocks of the constitution. That power cannot be given up, except by this House voluntarily surrendering it, which it has not done. No court in this land can question a decision made by this House to regulate its own affairs. It is arguable that the European courts could, but we can take away their right to do so by a simple piece of legislation. If we are to legislate, therefore, it should be to reinforce our self-regulatory powers and to remove the possibility of challenge. That would clarify what we can do, and we should then go ahead and do it.

John Cryer: Of course, technically it is not actually an offence for an MP to accept a bribe. A motion was passed—I have not got the information in front of me—in the 17th century that specifically condemned MPs who accept bribes, but it has never been enforced.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct. My point about Sir John Trevor is that we should use the power this House has to expel a Member for taking a bribe. That is not the same as a criminal offence. Sir John was entitled, had he wished and had his electorate wanted him back, to stand for Parliament again. As it happened, the King promoted him to become Master of the Rolls, so he did not do too badly out of it in the end.
	There is a difference between the penal power of Parliament and statute law and the requirement of an offence for a statutory punishment. There is no need for a specific offence for Parliament to act, which is a benefit because it is easier for us to expel a Member, and it leaves the person expelled with a right of appeal to his constituents. The British people would then be the ones to make the final decision. They would be entitled to decide whether the lobbying the Member had been caught up with was of a kind that they approved or disapproved of. Ultimately, it is right that we should trust the democratic forces of the electorate to judge our behaviour rather than parcelling it out to the judiciary, who I think are in a less strong position to judge whether what has happened is acceptable, right and proper in the political context in which it has taken place.
	It is important to remember that we can also punish those who are in contempt of Parliament. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) that we need to use those powers to remind people that they still exist. By allowing them to wither on the vine, we have weakened the ability of Parliament to clean up its own Act. Had we done so over the expenses situation, we would not be in the sorry state we are now in with politicians being held in very low esteem.
	I urge the Government, rather than rushing hastily to legislation, to consider whether the powers that already exist can be used to clean up our own act, and can be used in a way that overcomes the difficulties of definition that the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett), the shadow spokesman, spoke very clearly of in his speech. That is the centre point of legislating, but it is the hardest point to define.
	I will leave hon. Ladies and Gentlemen with this thought: what happens when a constituent comes, accompanied by his accountant, as happened to me last week, to complain that he has been defrauded and wants me to do something to help him? His accountant is paid, is representing his views, and might be the only member of his firm, but he is clearly lobbying me. And then, what do we think of the Whips, who lobby me on an almost daily basis on whether I am to vote Aye or No, and are often successful in their desire to get me going in the right direction? Should we have a register of them to ensure that their behaviour is even more proper, benign and pious than it already is?

Pat Glass: It is always a pleasure, although not always easy, to follow the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg). He is always informative and entertaining.
	I have been a Member of this House since May 2010. When I was considering standing for selection as a candidate, I had to think carefully about whether this was something I wanted to do. I had concerns about the male culture and ethos of this place, and the impact that that would have on me as a woman MP. On that, my worst fears have been more than realised. I also had concerns about leaving a relatively successful career in education where I was relatively well respected to become a Member of Parliament, when the path to Parliament is hardly littered with respect and trust. I think we all know the reasons for that: it is not just the scandal in the previous Parliament but the view, widely felt out there among sections of the public, that we are all in it for ourselves and that election to Parliament is an open door to all kinds of experiences and funding not available to the general public.
	I know that the vast majority of Members of this House are here because they genuinely want to make a difference to the lives of the people we represent. We may do that in different ways and we may have different priorities, but that is the reason why we are here. Scandals connected with lobbying, like those highlighted in the press in recent weeks, simply reinforce the negative view of politics and politicians, and the view that the relationship between lobbyists and politicians is far too close and is built upon mutual greed.
	It is going to be really difficult to regain the trust of the public, but surely a good start is to put in place a statutory register of professional lobbyists that is backed up by regulation and includes a clear definition of what we mean by lobbying. When I say a clear definition, I mean a definition that will make sense to the people who vote for us. That should not just include third-party lobbyists, but in-house lobbyists and anyone who lobbies for commercial gain. Our constituents understand that the majority of all-party parliamentary groups provide information for parliamentarians, and work to influence MPs on issues of concern. All-party groups that support the work of parliamentarians in education, care leavers, social mobility, multiple sclerosis, breast cancer, ovarian cancer and autism—all groups that I am happy to say I am involved in—and the charities and even companies that support those groups, are not lobbying Members with anything other than good intentions. It is right that those groups have access to politicians, and that is what our constituents would expect.
	However, it is also clear to our constituents that we need regulation for all-party groups funded by private companies and for organisations that are bidding for Government contracts, offering lucrative jobs to former Ministers, MPs and Peers, and whose profits depend on Government policy. At its most basic, this issue is about the rich and powerful gaining access to those in government who make decisions, very often financial decisions, that can affect a company’s bottom line. That access is not available to the rest of the population. Although we may never be able to stop that completely, it is important that we regulate it and make it transparent.
	I have to admit that I have received very little of what I would consider to be lobbying for commercial gain, but that is probably because I tend to involve myself in areas of activity that do not attract lucrative contracts. However, as the Government privatise more areas of health and education it will be harder to avoid. It is therefore ever more important that we have a statutory register in place that includes not only a clear definition of professional lobbying, but a code of conduct that is so clear that our constituents will understand it and approve of it, including a headline that forbids inappropriate financial relations between lobbyists and parliamentarians. I know that that is difficult. As the hon. Member for North East Somerset said, this is the crux of the matter. It will be incredibly difficult to define, but we know exactly what we are talking about and so do our constituents.
	We need strong sanctions for both parliamentarians and lobbyists where breaches occur. It might just make a difference to lobbyists if they knew that if they breached or even attempted to breach the code, they could be prevented from working in Parliament again, and that in the most serious cases matters could be referred to the police and ultimately result in jail sentences. Despite the Prime Minister’s promises that he would deal with this, all he has done is to kick it into the long grass and he has only retrieved it following yet another scandal. However, I am less concerned about how we got here. Let us be glad that we have got here and let us get it right this time.
	My concern is that the Government’s proposals are late, are weak and will not stop the most insidious and lucrative lobbying. The Government, either inadvertently or deliberately, failed to deal with the real problem.

Damian Collins: Does the hon. Lady agree that we must proceed with some care in terms of how we put together a register of lobbyists because, in the most recent scandals, it has not been lobbyists seeking to entrap parliamentarians but journalists masquerading as lobbyists? Many people who consider themselves to be lobbyists as part of a voluntary registered scheme already would never engage in such practices.

Pat Glass: Absolutely, which is why I said at the beginning that lobbying has a long tradition in this place and should continue. But we need to deal with that lobbying, or as the hon. Member for North East Somerset said, that corruption, which is about gaining commercially.
	Finally, I want to say that Labour did put a voluntary code of practice in place in 2009 but, like so many other voluntary codes of practice, it simply did not work. We need a statutory code of practice; something that has teeth and will bite. Our constituents need to see that, this time, we mean business. That will happen only if there is a statutory code of practice in place that works, so that those who breach it—MPs, peers and lobbyists—are dealt with severely. This will not in itself reinstate trust in politics, but it will be a good place to start.

Sarah Wollaston: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass). I should start with a confession; I am married to a lobbyist. He is a consultant NHS psychiatrist and chair of the Westminster liaison committee for the Royal College of Psychiatrists and provides advice on mental health to all political parties. Having made that confession, I shall confess that I am also a lobbyist; I lobby shamelessly on behalf of my constituents in South Devon.
	All of us would agree that lobbying is at the heart of our democracy and the way it works. It is a tragedy that lobbying has acquired a dirty raincoat image. I suggest that we should not throw the raincoat away; we should give the raincoat a wash. I welcome the statement from the Leader of the House that this is all about transparency in representation to decision-makers. But the word “transparency” has become devalued currency. We are talking about the kind of transparency that one sees on an ambulance window, allowing people to see out but not to see in.
	We need to look at how transparency applies in our democracy today. At the heart of the matter is the question: who are the decision-makers in our democracy today? As a Back-Bench MP, I find that very many of the decisions made in Parliament take place in rooms to which we are not invited. That is important. Who influences the decisions in those rooms? Very often, in this day and age, it is election strategists. I have no objection to election strategists but if we are to have transparency in representation to decision- makers, we must have transparency in who election strategists, for all political parties, are also representing outside that very important role.
	If an election strategist is also working as a paid lobbyist on behalf of big alcohol, big tobacco and other interests around the world, it is very important that people can see what those interests are. It is important that that extends to both Front Benches, and it would
	be greatly to the credit of Opposition Front-Benchers if they accepted that they should also keep a diary of who meets them. This has to apply across the board to all those making decisions on our behalf in Parliament.
	I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) has returned to his place because I completely agree with him that there is no legislation in this House that could not be improved with pre-legislative scrutiny. I urge the Leader of the House to look at this important point. What would be the harm in bringing this to a Committee to allow not only Members of this House to make sensible recommendations for change, but people outside? We will have a better Bill if we have pre-legislative scrutiny. Let us not be afraid to allow people outside the House to see what we do in this place and who makes representations to us, and let us have a better democracy.

Gareth Thomas: This has been an extremely interesting debate. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) set out, we hope that this debate will prompt the Government to recognise the urgent need to introduce a statutory register for all who lobby professionally and a clear code of conduct, including a ban on financial relationships between lobbyists and parliamentarians and clear sanctions where the code is breached. Those sanctions should ultimately include preventing serious offenders from practising by removing them from the register.
	In his opening remarks, the Leader of the House did not explain why the Government were against a clear statutory code of conduct for lobbyists, so it would be good to hear more from the Deputy Leader of the House about that and to hear him explain how a register that covers only third-party lobbyists will clarify the Tesco problem—to paraphrase the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards), who is no longer in his place—and help us to find out what big organisations are lobbying the Government about. It is not often clear or self-apparent what an organisation is lobbying about, given their range of interests.
	As our motion makes clear, we are willing to work on a cross-party basis, so that all our collective interests can be served. That point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) and the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr and for Totnes (Dr Wollaston). It is in the long-term interests of both sides of the House, as well as of those we seek to serve, that we toughen up the rules on lobbying and that we get them right. As several hon. Members, not least the hon. Member for Carlisle (John Stevenson), made clear, it is important to remember that much of the lobbying we get is critical to helping MPs do their jobs: the letter from constituents demanding improvements in patient care, the quiet word from small businesses about the failure of big banks to lend money. These are all forms of lobbying, and they all benefit our democracy by contributing to political debate.
	Nevertheless, the growth in the amount of evidence on the scale of lobbying and its ability to influence Ministers makes it imperative that we make progress.
	Lobbying reform is now essential if the Government are to retain the benefit of the doubt among our constituents that they serve the common good and that Ministers are not subservient to the private interests of millionaires and big business. As my hon. Friends the Members for Warrington North (Helen Jones) and for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) made clear, the public’s concern is that much of the lobbying industry is hidden from public view. A lobbyist is not obliged to identify who they are, what they do, the sources of their finance, who their ultimate client is and how much is being spent. In short, there is no requirement on lobbyists or those who want lobbying done to operate in the open, in the light, where their conversations and the responses of those they lobby can be scrutinised more effectively.
	The best lobbyists, it is true, operate according to an ethical code, but comparatively few are signed up to the various codes that exist, so without clear legal force and teeth, such voluntary codes of conduct will clearly not be taken seriously enough by all in the industry. There have been a series of revelations about the scale of big business’s influence on key Government legislation, such as, for example, the Leader of the House’s disastrous Health and Social Care Act 2012. I am not against the lobbying of Government by big business—I welcome it on the same basis as I welcome all lobbying—but it has to be done in the open. It would appear, however, as a result of the Government’s proposals, that lobbyists working directly for big business groups will not be required to register—an extraordinary situation—to abide by any code of conduct or to spell out what they are lobbying about.
	Already the concern exists that too often it is the voice of one or two corporate lobbyists that gets heard in Downing street, the Department of Health and throughout Whitehall, not the voice of ordinary people in Britain. There are other international examples of clearer, tougher measures being taken on lobbying, notably in the United States, in Canada and in Australia, all of which have tougher legislation than Ministers are proposing here.
	Ministers claim that because records of ministerial meetings are published, in-house lobbyists do not need to be included on any register. It is worth remembering, however, that The Independent carried out an analysis of who Ministers met in the first 18 months of their time in office. Out of 4,000-plus declared ministerial meetings recorded by the Government, only seven were with lobbying firms. Perhaps the Ministers did not have much contact with lobbyists, but that is difficult to believe given last year’s revelations about McKinsey’s influence on the Bill introduced by the then Health Secretary, the right hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr Lansley), and about Fred Michel’s influence on the then Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. A register that requires only a few lobbying firms to register will not represent a great leap forward for transparency.
	After three years in office, this Government ought to be making more progress on lobbying reform. Things should be getting better, yet lobbying scandals keep on coming, and Ministers are failing to turn things round. The Government are standing up for the wrong people—in this case, the secretive in-house lobbyists—instead of for ordinary people. We want change, real transparency, a statutory code of conduct and a requirement for all
	lobbyists to register. That is not much to ask; it is what the British people want, and it is time the Government delivered it.

Tom Brake: I congratulate the hon. Members for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) and for Harrow West (Mr Thomas) on initiating the debate and on giving the coalition Government an opportunity to set out how we are tackling third-party influence. I am happy to congratulate them, but I must gently chastise them too. Their motion is the most egregious attempt to jump on a bandwagon that I have seen in recent years. They call on the Government to introduce a Bill on lobbying before the summer recess, when we had already announced such a Bill two weeks before. At the same time, and in the same breath, for the first time in three years they are calling for cross-party talks when they know that such talks would make the task of delivering a Bill by the summer recess virtually impossible. They will of course have an opportunity to demonstrate their desire for a consensual, cross-party approach as the Bill makes its passage through the House, and we look forward to their wholehearted and constructive support.
	I should like to thank the Chairman of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), for the valuable scrutiny role that his Committee plays. I know that he will not be entirely satisfied with the way in which the Government intend to proceed, given the report that the Committee has produced, but I believe that our proposals are well thought out, perfectly formed and tightly focused. We will not adopt the full-blown register that he is seeking, but I hope that our proposals on a third-party register and those on ministerial reporting—which will require any meeting with an in-house lobbyist to be reported, with a description of the discussions—will provide the transparency that he wants.

Graham Allen: Speaking on behalf of the Select Committee, which studied the proposals in some detail, I am not proposing that the Government should accept the things that we said in our report. I am saying that the House as a whole should be given, say, three weeks under the auspices of the Select Committee to examine the Bill seriously, preferably before its Second Reading but even during an interregnum after that point, so that any Member, anyone in Government and anyone in the lobbying profession can make their views plain. Whatever shape the Bill is in—I am sure that it is perfectly formed—we might be able to improve it slightly through such an examination.

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. The hon. Gentleman is a very experienced Member, and he has already made his speech in the debate. We do not need a second one. Good interventions are short interventions.

Tom Brake: I thank the Chairman of the Select Committee for his intervention. He will have heard my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House of Commons clarify what pre-legislative scrutiny was possible and what was not.

Alan Whitehead: rose—

Helen Jones: rose—

Tom Brake: I want to make some progress now, and to comment on the points raised in the debate.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (John Stevenson) ably demonstrated in his opening remarks that lobbying is a fact of life for Members of Parliament and that we are clearly not seeking to ban the activity, but to maximise the transparency of it.
	My heart goes out to my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) as he travels around the 3,800 square miles of his constituency. He cannot get round his constituency in the way that I can on my bicycle, but my constituency is only 25 square miles. He highlighted the important role of the ministerial code, and referred to section 8.14, which deals with ministerial reporting. His desire—one that I would share with him—is to use that as a mechanism for improving transparency. We as individual Members of Parliament and Ministers can undertake to do that, without the need for legislation.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Tom Brake: I will give way later.
	My hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin) referred to the historical role that central lobbying has to play, and mentioned where the definition of lobbying came from. She set out how she as an individual MP has tackled some of the issues of greater clarity and transparency by publishing on her own website the details of her contacts. People can thus see that all is open and clear.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Tom Brake: I happily give way to the hon. Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones).

Helen Jones: I am grateful. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us exactly why the Government are refusing to have pre-legislative scrutiny of this Bill?

Tom Brake: I think that the Government are in a difficult position: on the one hand we are told that we are not moving ahead swiftly enough, while on the other we are told to make time available for pre-legislative scrutiny. The original proposals were scrutinised heavily, and the Government will come forward with a Bill, many aspects of which will be familiar to the hon. Member for Nottingham North, the Select Committee Chairman, for instance, as they were set out in the original proposals.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Tom Brake: I need to make a bit more progress before giving way again.
	We can reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart) that, when the Bill is published—

Graham Allen: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Is it in order to pray in aid the Select Committee when I have been clear, impartial and open with the House
	about our Select Committee’s scrutiny and the failure of the Government to respond to our report within a year? Is it somehow acceptable for the Minister to pray in aid the Select Committee in pursuit of arguments that he cannot seem to make himself?

Lindsay Hoyle: I note that point and it is on the record. As the hon. Gentleman will know, I am not responsible for, and have no desire to be responsible for, the speech of the Deputy Leader of the House.

Tom Brake: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I would have given way to the hon. Member for Nottingham North if he had waited his turn.
	As I was saying, my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire can be reassured that when the Bill is published, there will be clarity and no room for misunderstanding or misconstruing the Government’s intentions when it comes to the definitions of lobbying, who is covered and who is not covered.
	I was a little bit alarmed at the beginning of the contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) when he seemed to be inviting you, Mr Deputy Speaker, to test the market to see what the going rate for paid representation was. Later, he clarified that that was not what he was suggesting. He raised a serious point about the powers that we have as a House to enforce our own rules. He wanted us to exercise those powers diligently and without hesitation, and I would certainly agree with him on that. We were then given the parliamentary equivalent of a TED talk on parliamentary privilege, which I suggest we put on YouTube for others to view later. Finally, I can give the reassurance that it is not the Government’s intention to include the Whips in the register.
	Finally, there was a contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), who described herself as a lobbyist for her constituents—a role that we all applaud. We should all seek to imitate her in that role. She reinforced the point that both Front-Bench teams should show transparency. We will want to hear more from the Opposition about that.

Gareth Thomas: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Tom Brake: Indeed—it looks as if we are about to hear from them.

Gareth Thomas: May I pursue a point raised by the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston)? Why does the right hon. Gentleman, a Liberal Democrat, think it acceptable for Crosby Textor not to have to abide by a statutory code of conduct? That is the gist of the proposals that he is supporting.

Tom Brake: I am happy to tell the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and I work very closely together. I have some responsibility for some aspects of Liberal Democrat policy, and he speaks for the Conservatives on some issues relating to the Conservative party. However, the issue raised by the
	hon. Gentleman is clearly a Conservative party issue, and not an issue for the Deputy Leader or, indeed, the Leader of the House.
	The hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (John Cryer) was anxious for us to be able to deal with unaccountable wealth that wields unaccountable influence in this place. I hope that we shall at least be able to clarify the position relating to third-party lobbyists, who often represent companies with considerable wealth. I worry about the hon. Gentleman, however: I do not know what the Deputy Prime Minister has done to him, but he clearly has a large chip on his shoulder. I recommend therapy to deal with that.
	The hon. Member for Warrington North said that members of the public had lost faith in politicians. I agree with her to some extent, but I should point out that according to the latest report by the Hansard Society, the public feel that in certain respects politicians in this place have a greater influence on affairs. That may be partly a result of the e-petition process and the important role played by the Backbench Business Committee.
	The hon. Lady issued a plea for the register to include in-house lobbyists who were connected with charities, trade unions and churches, but did not say why she considered that to be necessary. As I have already explained, quarterly reports of meetings between Ministers and permanent secretaries and in-house lobbyists provide the details of those who were met and the purposes of the meetings.

Helen Jones: I think that if the Minister reads the report of my words, he will see that I mentioned in-house lobbyists but not charities or churches.

Tom Brake: I thank the hon. Lady for providing that clarification. I am not sure that the same clarification has been provided by Opposition Front Benchers, but we will have other opportunities to hear from them about the scope of their proposals.
	Given the rather convoluted phrase about sunlight and soap with which the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) began his speech, he appeared to have been lobbied by Procter & Gamble. I am afraid that I lost the hon. Gentleman towards the end of that phrase, but his main point was that the problem of undue influence would be dealt with by the inclusion of everyone on a register. I do not understand how that can be the case. Simply including people on a register cannot ensure that they will not exert undue influence.
	I apologise to the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) for having missed the beginning of his speech. He spoke of the need for an engaged, interactive citizens’ democracy, which is something that I would certainly support and welcome.
	I hope that the hon. Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass) feels that the House is becoming less—

Pat Glass: indicated dissent.

Tom Brake: No, she clearly thinks that the House is still too confrontational, or too male-dominated or testosterone-driven. I am not entirely sure what she considers to be the cause of the tension.
	The hon. Lady advanced the same arguments about the need for an extensive register. She, too, did not take account of the fact that meetings with in-house lobbyists are reported. Those who want to establish whom Ministers have met and why, and the dates on which they have met, can refer to the quarterly report, and can then ask questions if they wish to do so. If, for instance, it concerns them that a Minister has met representatives of Tesco to discuss food labelling, they can pursue the matter further. However—this is relevant to what my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross said—I should welcome greater transparency in that regard. I know Ministers are looking at that collectively.
	Finally, in summing up for the Opposition the hon. Member for Harrow West touched on many of the issues that his hon. Friends had raised in the debate, in particular the code of conduct. The Government’s position is clear: that is best addressed by business, so we can focus on the third-party register.
	This debate has provided a timely and refreshing opportunity for the coalition to set out how we intend to tackle the potential risks associated with third-party influence, by bringing forward coherent, finely balanced and proportionate measures—measures that will not burden charities and other organisations with huge regulations, as requested by the hon. Member for West Bromwich East (Mr Watson).
	These are measures that I believe the whole House will be able to support. I urge Members to back the Government amendment and reject the Opposition motion.

Question put (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the original words stand part of the Question.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 228, Noes 278.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the proposed words be there added.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 291, Noes 221.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	The Deputy Speaker declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to (Standing Order No. 31(2)).
	Resolved,
	That this House notes the failure of the previous Administration to implement a statutory register of lobbyists for 13 years; welcomes the Coalition Agreement commitment to regulate lobbying through a statutory register; notes the Government’s consultation paper on Introducing a Statutory Register of Lobbyists; welcomes the Government’s commitment to bring forward legislation before the summer recess to introduce a statutory register of lobbyists, as part of a broad package of measures to tighten the rules on how third parties can influence the UK’s political system; and looks forward to welcoming reforms that ensure that the activities of outside organisations who seek to influence the political process are transparent, accountable and properly regulated.

Armed Forces

[Relevant documents: Seventh Report from the Defence Committee, Session 2010-12, The Armed Forces Covenant in Action? Part 1: Military Casualties, HC 762, and the Government response, HC 1855. Second Report from the Defence Committee, Session 2012-13, The Armed Forces Covenant in Action? Part 2: Accommodation, HC 331, and the Government response, HC 578.]

Jim Murphy: I beg to move,
	That this House celebrates and commemorates the contribution of Her Majesty’s Armed Forces and their families, in particular those currently serving overseas; recognises the important introduction of Armed Forces Day in 2006 and urges the nation to come together and champion the Services’ achievements throughout the decades; pays tribute to the UK’s Forces, their families and the charities who do so much to support them; recognises the enormous contribution of the staff who support the UK’s Forces from within Government and the workforces in industry who supply them with world-class equipment; urges all those in public life to seek additional ways to support the Armed Forces Covenant; urges the Government, local authorities, business and charities to deliver the best possible post-service support; and considers the principles of the Armed Forces Covenant essential to uphold, through public policy, the provision of welfare and frontline support.
	I am pleased to start what I think is an important debate in advance of Armed Forces day on issues that should transcend party politics. The care and support that we offer those prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice on behalf of others in our nation’s name across the globe is something that we rightly celebrate every day and in particular this weekend. The patriotism, courage and dedication of the men and women who serve are immeasurable. The first duty of any Government to protect our citizens would not be possible without our forces’ commitment, and they must at all times be properly valued and rewarded.
	I want this House to know again that the Government will always have the support of those on the Opposition Benches when they seek to support our service personnel. This is more important as Armed Forces day approaches. That is an opportunity for people across the UK to come together locally to celebrate the contribution our forces and their families make, not just to our national security, but to local communities. So it is in that spirit that I offer my comments today. In doing so, however, I cannot guarantee the tone or the spirit in which my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) will wind up today’s debate.

James Gray: I strongly agree with everything the right hon. Gentleman said about Armed Forces day and about support for our armed forces. Having read his motion carefully, I strongly agree with every single word in it and I am most grateful to him for proposing it. However, I look forward to the response of his hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones). Is it not the job of Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition not simply to propose a motion on which we all agree, but to try to point out what is wrong with what the Government are doing? Why has he wasted the opportunity to do so?

Jim Murphy: There are 364 days of the year to point out where the Government are going wrong. We have chosen today in advance of Armed Forces day to celebrate the contribution our armed forces make and to offer, as the hon. Gentleman will realise as he listens to the rest of my comments, some of the ways in which we think the country and our politics could further improve the service and support for our armed forces. But I will take his advice and when I next return to the Dispatch Box I will do so in the spirit of my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham, rather than making my own comments.

Jim Cunningham: May I answer the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray)? I will tell him what is wrong with the armed forces, if he really wants to know—the cuts to the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers.

Jim Murphy: There will be opportunities throughout the debate for right hon. and hon. Members to make their own assessments of the strength of the Government’s defence policy, but my intention today, as I said at the beginning of my remarks, is to make constructive suggestions about how together we can do more to honour our armed forces and support their families.

Bob Russell: In a comradely spirit, does the right hon. Gentleman think that military bands have a role to play in the future of our armed forces?

Jim Murphy: I have visited the hon. Gentleman’s constituency a number of times and know how passionately he argues that case. Of course military bands play an important role, as we saw at trooping the colour a couple of weeks ago on Her Majesty’s official birthday. I think that the remarkable sights and sounds of military bands are celebrated by the entre nation.

Bob Russell: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Jim Murphy: I will give way, as long as the hon. Gentleman understands that this will be his second and final intervention.

Mark Francois: Good luck!

Bob Russell: The reason I intervened is that under the Labour Government the number of Army bands was reduced by almost a quarter.

Jim Murphy: I knew that I would enjoy the hon. Gentleman’s second intervention. Someone shouted from a sedentary position “Good luck” in relation to his not seeking to intervene again. All I will say is that I will not give way to him later in my speech. I am pretty proud of the changes and reforms introduced by the Labour Government with regard to our armed forces. Members today will offer their observations and criticisms, but on balance I am pretty proud of our record.
	Our armed forces stationed overseas are rightly at the front of all our minds, including those stationed in Afghanistan. They operate in the dust and danger of a far-away terrain to protect security on our streets at
	home. Of course, after the pain of the past few years, many people understandably ask why it is in our interests to engage in such causes and to confront unrest in Afghanistan and elsewhere. The answer, in my opinion, is pretty straightforward: we do so because we do not want it to visit our shores.
	We have recently seen UK personnel operating in Libya and Mali, alongside the ongoing operations in Afghanistan, in a sign of the unpredictability of today’s security landscape. Today the men and women who put themselves in harm’s way do so in a rapidly evolving defence environment that will demand new skills, technologies and strategies alongside their timeless courage and ingenuity.

David Ruffley: I endorse the right hon. Gentleman’s preliminary remarks. Are not many armed servicemen and women worried about any future entanglement? Will he take this opportunity to share with the House the answer to this question: do Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition support or oppose arming the Syrian opposition forces?

Jim Murphy: As my right hon. Friends the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Foreign Secretary have already made clear, there is a great degree of scepticism and worry about any decision to arm the Syrian opposition, not least because it is not possible to quarantine the arms provided or guarantee who will be the end user. We look forward to hearing the Government make their argument. I thought that the Prime Minister, at Prime Minister’s questions the week before last, had an argument, but he did not make it very well.
	Our purpose in the world is to defend our interests and promote our values, but the means by which we achieve those ends and the threats that challenge both our interests and our ideas are increasingly diverse, complex and intense. The global population is growing rapidly, putting massive pressure on resources and space and forcing migration from poor to rich states. Climate change will reduce available land, food and water, exacerbating the drivers of state failure. Weak and unstable states already outnumber strong and stable ones by more than 2:1. A youth bulge is seeing rising aspiration and great emotional urgency in the desire for political change. The advance of information technologies and biotechnologies threatens international security infrastructure, while nuclear proliferation and cyber-attacks pose the potential for mass destruction.
	Within this context, it is our duty collectively to ensure that our forces are designed to meet new threats, with a strategy defined by adaptability, prevention and partnering with our allies. Labour has argued that our recruitment plan must be advanced and affordable, defined by discipline in budgetary management as well as maximising modern technology and a new multilateralism, and that our armed forces must be higher-skilled, focused on stabilisation, cultural embedding and building other nations’ underdeveloped forces so that they can share the burden of future heavy lifting. We see a new role for our services based on earlier intervention, to prevent the need for the large-scale conflicts of our recent history. However, it is our duty to ensure that such capability is based on reform throughout the ranks.
	Our duty to forces on the front line is matched, of course, by our duty of care to them when they return. The armed forces covenant, enshrined in 2010 following a campaign by the Royal British Legion, has at its heart the principle that no one should suffer disadvantage as a result of their service. That principle should infuse all our work in support of the covenant and those men, women and their families.

Andy Sawford: I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend about the armed forces covenant. I am sure he welcomes the news that all three local authorities in my area have signed up to the community covenant. Indeed, this Saturday morning we will name the town square in Corby after Lance Corporal James Ashworth, who, as my right hon. Friend will know, made the ultimate sacrifice fighting in Helmand, Afghanistan. He was awarded the Victoria Cross—only the 14th person to receive the honour since the second world war. I welcome my right hon. Friend’s commitment to encouraging local authorities to recognise the sacrifice of our troops.

Jim Murphy: My hon. Friend speaks again with great passion about Lance Corporal James Ashworth. This is not a partisan point: my hon. Friend has been in the House for only a short time, but no Member on either side of the House could fail to be impressed by the diligence with which he has taken an interest in armed forces and defence issues. The whole House is improved by his contributions. I am sure that, like my hon. Friend, Members across the House will be doing their bit in their own town and city centres this Saturday. I will be in Nottingham at the national celebration of Armed Forces day.
	Only recently did we graphically witness both the danger that our forces face and the unity that they can inspire. The atrocious murder of Drummer Lee Rigby sickened us all—a feeling whose intensity was matched only by the resolve to defeat the extremist sentiments that shaped the minds of the murderers. The result was not division, apart from that in respect of an exploitative minority; instead, it was a simple act of Britain standing together to defy that violence, hatred and intolerance.

Richard Drax: When that dreadful murder occurred, it was suggested that the uniform be removed and people should go out in civilian clothes. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that that was a bad idea? Like other Members, I am glad that that did not happen. We should stand up to such acts and be proud that the uniform of the Army, Navy or Air Force is worn in this country.

Jim Murphy: I fully endorse everything that the hon. Gentleman says. I recently enjoyed visiting his constituency in an unusual bout of sunshine; coming from Glasgow, I was not used to that.
	The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. For understandable reasons, our armed forces were, for a number of decades, to some degree invisible to the public eye because of the republican extremist violence emanating from Northern Ireland. Although there were questions during the first few hours after the attack the hon. Gentleman mentioned, it is right that we have
	settled on the position that our armed forces should continue to travel and be visible to the public mind and public affection. Although such a position is always taken under the best available advice, the hon. Gentleman makes an important point.

Jim Cunningham: On the cuts to the armed forces and their replacement with reservists, the Federation of Small Businesses said that a lot of their members would think twice before employing a reservist. Will my right hon. Friend comment on that?

Jim Murphy: I will comment on that a little later. It is an important point. The Regular Army is being cut to about 82,000 and the reservist force is being doubled to about 30,000. It is crucial for our country that that is done in the right way. The issue is partly about how the Government interact and explain the benefit of having reservists in the workplace. I shall come back to that a little later.
	I hope that Armed Forces day, in recognition of all those who have fallen, will be a reflection of the emotions that we feel—a commemoration of loved ones lost and a celebration of all they achieved and their comrades can continue to achieve; I am thinking not just of their deeds in the armed forces, but the love they gave, the friendships they built and the memories in which they are held.
	The covenant is a statement of collective purpose, as my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Andy Sawford) said. Its principles cut across classes, sectors, regions and nations of the UK. Businesses, local communities, central Government and local authorities all have a responsibility to deliver the highest possible levels of care and support to the service community. Of course we operate within financial constraints, but a pooling of our commitment and imagination can lead to better policy and meaningful results. That is why we have urged local authorities to have veterans champions—a dedicated person at each council to develop support for service leavers to help them to resettle into civilian life. On return from the front line or in departing the forces, many service leavers struggle with the transition from military to civilian life.

Angus Robertson: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will join me in praising all of Scotland’s local authorities for signing the covenant. On pooling, does he think that there is a useful model in understanding the work of Veterans Scotland, which brings together 53 veterans’ organisations to work with the Scottish Government and the UK Government to ensure that veterans have the appropriate policy delivered at a Scottish and a UK level?

Jim Murphy: It is a rare occasion when the hon. Gentleman and I are in full agreement on defence matters, because we have an entirely different vision for the future of UK defence. He makes a very important point. It is a cause for some celebration that all 32 of Scotland’s local authorities have community covenants. Of course, there is an issue of scale in England, but achieving 100% in Scotland is a remarkable achievement. I would like to put on record the whole House’s congratulations to all those local authorities.

Menzies Campbell: Mention of Scotland raises in my mind a prospect that many of us regard as unfortunate: that the contribution made by Scotland over many years—hundreds of years—to the British Army might in some way be prejudiced were Scotland to become independent and create its own armed forces. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that that tradition is worthy of protection and is as powerful an argument as any against the idea that Scotland should hive off from the United Kingdom?

Jim Murphy: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is exactly right; he makes an important point. One of the remarkable things about the patchwork nature of the United Kingdom is the way in which our four nations come together in some of our most important institutions, none more so than our armed forces. For very many people in Scotland, but also across the UK, the idea of tearing that apart demonstrates that independence is a powerful idea of the 19th century that is ill suited to the complexity of the 21st century.
	All this work and all this support from veterans’ champions are crucial to ensure that the armed forces covenant becomes a reality on the ground. For some time, I have reflected that although an Opposition party is formally out of office, it is not out of power. That is why we, as the Opposition, have worked with business to develop and deliver the veterans interview programme, which encourages employers to offer veterans a guaranteed interview or other form of enhanced employment support. It is a voluntary scheme that gives veterans a chance to show employers how their skills and experience could benefit their businesses. The Department for Work and Pensions has agreed to roll it out nationally.

Patrick Mercer: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that with the several hundred charities that now exist all facing in the right direction, there is perhaps a lack of co-ordination in bringing their efforts together for the best benefit of the veterans concerned?

Jim Murphy: The hon. Gentleman, who served with such gallantry, makes an important point. The work that COBSEO—the Confederation of Service Charities—is doing could be important in this regard. Understandably, a plethora of new organisations has been created, born out of the remarkable emotion in the country whereby people wish to do something—anything—to support our armed forces. In a little while I will announce one more organisation that will be doing important work in future. I hope that the hon. Gentleman shares my sense of satisfaction about that.
	Through the veterans interview programme, about which I have just spoken, we are working in partnership with some of the nation’s largest employers. This morning, in another partnership with business, I updated the Opposition’s Fighting Fitter campaign, through which health and leisure centres provide discounts for members of the forces and their families. Five national health companies are taking part: Nuffield Health, Pure Gym, David Lloyd, Virgin Active and ukactive. Between them, they have more than 450 sites that will offer discounts for the armed forces. We hope that others will do the same this weekend and beyond.
	I was joined at the launch this morning by an Olympic athlete. When I tweeted that fact earlier this morning, people got in touch to find out which Olympic athlete would be joining me on the publicity trail. The top suggestions were Jessica Ennis and Sir Chris Hoy. However, if you will forgive me on this one occasion, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the misuse of parliamentary terminology, it was not Sir Chris Hoy, but another knight: our very own Sir Ming Campbell. As the House will know, he competed a blink of an eye ago in the 1964 Olympic games in Tokyo. His other claim to fame, as he has said before, is that he defeated O. J. Simpson on the running track. We were joined, I am pleased to say, by the Chairman of the Defence Committee, the right hon. Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Arbuthnot), in the House of Commons gym in an all-party show of support for the Fighting Fitter campaign.

Bob Stewart: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Jim Murphy: If the hon. Gentleman wants to complain that he was not invited to the gym this morning, I will happily give way.

Bob Stewart: There is no chance of me ever being an Olympic athlete. I would like to inform the House what happened when the shadow Secretary of State visited the Marines. Apparently, they sent him on a run and he beat the lot of them. Since then, they have never recovered.

Jim Murphy: Defeating the Marines in a run is one thing; defeating the shadow Chancellor in the marathon is another. I know which one I will pay for the longest. I think that he was only two hours behind me —[Interruption.] However, I do not keep records of these things and, I am sure, neither does he.
	Let me get back to what I am meant to be reading out. The Opposition believe that it is vital to protect through anti-discrimination legislation those who protect our nation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham) said, recent polling shows that one in 20 service personnel have suffered abuse in the street. My hon. Friend referred to the attitude of businesses in the survey. A private Member’s Bill presented yesterday by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) proposes that abuse of the forces should be treated as aggravated, thus guaranteeing specific punishment for those who attack our forces. The polling also demonstrates that 18% of service personnel have been refused service in a public place. The Bill also proposes to outlaw discrimination against members of the forces in the provision of goods and services. That is vital if we are to tackle disadvantage that arises from military service. Although I am certain that the Bill can be improved technically, I hope that it will gain cross-party support.
	We hope that the whole House will support the initiatives that I have mentioned: the veterans interview programme, local armed forces champions, the Fighting Fitter campaign and the anti-discrimination legislation. I look forward to hearing from the Minister, whom we also did not invite to our session at the gym this morning. I hope that he will reflect on each of those initiatives which, although launched by the Opposition, are free from party politics.

John Baron: Before the right hon. Gentleman moves on from veterans, does he think that it is important that we recognise the role played by British nuclear test veterans? Those veterans played a unique service role at the dawn of our nuclear weapons programme, but the country has never recognised them properly. We rank pretty close to the bottom of the international table of decency on this issue compared with other nuclear countries. Does he think that it is time to put that right?

Jim Murphy: The hon. Gentleman raises an important and long-running issue. All I would say is that I have met, and will continue to meet, representatives of those veterans, as do hon. Members on all sides of the House. I am sure that the Government are grappling with this matter. Under the previous Government a settlement offer was made, but my recollection and understanding is that that was blocked, seemingly by legal process and by lawyers. If that had not been the case, compensation might already have been provided. It is disappointing and regrettable that that has not happened.
	An essential element of duty of care is how we support those who have served to get back into work post-service. Being in the armed forces often provides personnel with friendship, if not near-familial support. It can be disorientating and disconcerting when bonds with compatriots are suddenly broken and the norms of military life are lost.

Charles Hendry: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Jim Murphy: I will happily give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I will then, with your permission Madam Deputy Speaker, make some progress.

Charles Hendry: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that there is a challenge for people who have tremendous skills and expertise from their time in the armed forces? When they move on, potential employers who have suitable vacancies often do not employ them because they do not have relevant industrial experience. Does he see a role for organisations such as ForceSelect and others to work with those leaving the armed forces and with potential employers to help ensure that they have the opportunity for a long-term career outside the forces too?

Jim Murphy: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. He and his wife continue to do so much to support armed forces charity. I had the opportunity to attend one of his functions, which managed to raise thousands of pounds. His point about the relationship and interaction between potential employers and service leavers is crucial. The Government, as part of a national effort, should help to lead the way in breaking down some of those barriers and fostering a greater degree of understanding. The approach that we favour, as the hon. Gentleman hinted at, is to enhance post-service support and introduce much more rigorous in-service training. That would not only ensure that those who leave have the skills and structures to help them advance in new careers, but strengthen the operational effectiveness of the services by increasing the skill levels of personnel while they are still serving.
	On post-service support, we want to see a permanent umbrella body, set above the brilliant but sometimes fragmented third sector, that will be a one-stop shop for leavers and that would vastly increase access to support and services.

Andrew Percy: I, with other members of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, recently met the US Department of Veterans Affairs, which produces a “bible” for veterans. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that we need to have something similar in this country: a one-stop shop for all the services, support and benefits that are available for veterans?

Jim Murphy: The hon. Gentleman makes a serious point about how we can learn from international experience. A lot of information is available online, but not in print. If he wishes to suggest to the Government that they produce their own bible, I am sure that the Education Secretary would be happy to write the foreword. The hon. Gentleman raises an important point, and I am sure that those on the Government Front Bench are listening.
	While it is right that members of the armed forces—this relates to the point about an additional organisation—do not have a union and cannot join a union, I want to mention for a moment the role of trade unions in the important work of post-service workplace support. I know that some in the country, and perhaps even some in the Chamber today, bemoan the role of unions, but I am delighted to inform the House that earlier this afternoon I attended an event with the general secretary of the Community union, Michael Leahy. I hope that the whole House will welcome the news that the Community trade union has announced its intention to work with parliamentarians on all sides and other stakeholders to position themselves as the UK veterans’ union. It is well known that Community supports me in my work as shadow Defence Secretary, and from now on it will be able to offer specialist, bespoke provision to help veterans find gainful employment and continue to make a valuable difference.
	Changes in post-service support should be just one side of the reform we need, which is why we are arguing for faster academic attainment within the services. In recent evidence, the Defence Select Committee said:
	“The provision for meeting the literacy and numeracy needs of our service personnel would benefit from further improvement.”
	A system where many of those who defend our country are left without additional basic skills is bad for our troops, the Army and our country. We believe that through close collaboration with the MOD, the Department for Education and the devolved Administrations across the country, there can be opportunities to reach level 2 within two years for those without qualifications. This should apply across the UK because while education may be devolved in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, our collective responsibility to our forces is not. I want to make it certain that members of the forces would benefit from such changes, no matter where in our islands they live. There should also be specialist training in literacy teaching, increased provision of Army apprenticeships within the infantry and easier conversion to civilian qualifications. Enhanced in-service education would be a genuine means of progression for military men and women.
	Turning briefly to the issue of reservists, the House will be aware that in the light of the Government’s structural change in the Army—as my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South has mentioned—realising defence planning assumptions rests largely on doubling the number of reserves to 30,000. Labour Members support a larger role for the Army reserve, as it will rightly be known, but we are concerned that plans are as yet insufficiently available in detail to give members enough information and senior military figures have raised public concerns about their confidence in the success of the current process.
	In advance of the forthcoming White Paper, there are a number of policies that we believe the Government should consider, not least to ensure the compatibility between longer training and deployment time periods and the employment of a larger reserve force.

Ian Austin: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the people of Dudley on the contribution they make to the reservists through A squadron of the Royal Mercian and Lancastrian Yeomanry, which is based in Vicar street, Dudley? It is the best recruited squadron in the country; it recently took on 47 new trainees and is processing another 60 now, and has had two dozen volunteers on active service in Afghanistan.

Jim Murphy: My hon. Friend has been so strong in support of his Territorial regiment. When I was in Dudley, the campaign was so fierce that it was the one issue about which the local media wanted to talk. I congratulate him, and the Government will have to take into account the point he makes, not only about the high regard in which the unit is held in Dudley but the fact that it is recruited to full strength and is indeed over-subscribed. I look forward to the Minister responding to that specific point.
	There must also be real protection for reservists. Current legislation says clearly that an employer has a duty to re-employ a returning reservist in the occupation they were employed in before their service and on the same terms and conditions. There is, however, no legislation to prevent an employer from discriminating against reservists in their hiring procedures on the grounds of their military affiliation. The Government should now consult employers specifically on new legislation to protect against discrimination in hiring reservists, which would need to be coupled with an obligation of transparency from reservists to declare their status.

John Baron: Is the shadow Secretary of State’s concern compounded by the fact that if we look at the present mobilisation rate of the existing TA, which stands at about 40%, we see that plugging the gap left by the loss of 20,000 regulars would require 50,000 reservists and not 30,000? Does the rundown of the TA forces in recent years, including the closure of TA centres and the fact that TA numbers are in decline, worry him?

Jim Murphy: The hon. Gentleman has raised these matters in Defence questions and other defence debates, and he will continue to do so. He sounds a clear warning to the Government and anyone who wishes to
	govern that in order to be successful, this policy—of boosting reservist numbers, engaging with employers and getting right the proportion of regulars to reservists and the relationship and integration of units and individuals—has to be done almost faultlessly. It is an enormous challenge to cut the Regular Army at this pace in the expectation that reservists will fill the gap, and I know that he will continue to raise that point.
	Finally, the evidence shows that some reservists can suffer worse post-service psychological issues than regulars, in part because of the speed of the transition from military to civilian settings, so we should consider how we can increase access for reservists to military medical services in order to tackle the potential mental health problems that a minority—I stress, a minority—experience.
	The Opposition will regularly disagree on many aspects of domestic and on some aspects of defence policy, and the decision to leave certain key capability gaps following the defence review will remain controversial and continue to provoke enormous debate, but Armed Forces day should be defined not by a political contest between parties, but where possible by consensus and celebration. The groups comprising our national defence—the high-skilled industrial work forces that make world-class equipment, the civilian government work force that do so much to support our forces, the charities whose unrivalled support and commitment to our armed forces personnel provide a lifeline when often another does not exist, and the families, who are sometimes forgotten, but who make sacrifices to support the actions of their family members on the front line—will each participate in this Saturday’s celebrations, but uppermost in our thoughts will be the hundreds lost in recent conflicts and the thousands in service overseas this weekend and unable to be at home and to join in the commemorations and celebrations. We remember them, we thank them and, this weekend, we celebrate them.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. Before I call the Minister, I want to give notice to all Back Benchers that there will be a six-minute time limit, which, depending on how the debate goes, it might be necessary to reduce in order to ensure that everybody who wants to participate can.

Mark Francois: I welcome the opportunity to speak for the Government in this important debate. Although this is technically an Opposition day, there is evidently a good deal of consensus in the House on this issue, and without wishing to tempt fate, I suspect that the mood will be slightly different from the last time the right hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Mr Murphy) and I crossed swords—over the Lisbon treaty—on behalf of our respective parties.
	The members of our armed forces, past and present, regulars and reserves, have made an incredible contribution to this country, some having made the ultimate sacrifice on our behalf. We owe our armed forces an enormous debt, and it is right that we continually strive to recognise, repay and honour this debt. The sheer breadth and pace of operations over the last decade have raised awareness of the bravery and dedication of our service personnel,
	and public support for our armed forces is arguably at an all-time high—something that I am sure the whole House will welcome and endorse. Excellent work has been done by all sections of society—by the public sector, the private sector and charities—to help harness this support. Earlier this month, for instance, we paid tribute to those veterans who stormed the Normandy beaches to help free Europe from Nazi tyranny. I was privileged to lay several wreaths on behalf of the Government. This was personally poignant for me as my father, Reginald Francois, served aboard a minesweeper on D-day 69 years ago.
	Armed Forces day this Saturday is just one of the many ways the public show their support for our service personnel. It is an important occasion, because it allows us to come together on a single day to show our appreciation for what they do for us every day. Since its inception as veterans day in 2006—it became armed forces day in 2009—it has allowed millions of people to celebrate the achievements and remember the sacrifices of our soldiers, sailors and airmen and women. The event has gained real momentum in the past few years, thanks to the backing of the royal family, charities, businesses, the armed forces themselves, and thousands of volunteers up and down the country. I would like to take this opportunity to thank all those who give their time and effort to make Armed Forces day the success that it has now become. This year, there will be more than 300 events taking place all over the country—including, I am proud to say, in Rayleigh—ranging in scale from the small to the large, and the formal to the informal.

Bob Russell: Will the Minister give way?

Mark Francois: Yes; it is no surprise that the hon. Member for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell) wishes to intervene on me.

Bob Russell: Speaking as one Essex MP to another, I am sure that the Minister would like to inform the House that among the celebrations in his constituency there will be a performance by the Colchester military wives choir.

Mark Francois: Having seen the programme, I am happy to confirm that that is the case. I heard the Colchester military wives choir perform in Portcullis House some months ago, and if it gives as good a performance on Saturday as it did then, all my constituents who attend the event will be very impressed.

Andrew Gwynne: rose—

Jake Berry: rose—

Mark Francois: I shall give way first to the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne).

Andrew Gwynne: I shall be in Victoria park in Denton on Saturday to celebrate Armed Forces day. Another way in which the public can get together to celebrate our armed forces is through the homecoming of our troops. The Minister will be pleased to hear that we have had huge crowds in Tameside and Stockport for the homecoming of the Duke of Lancaster’s Regiment and the Mercian Regiment in the past few weeks.

Mark Francois: I am absolutely delighted to hear that. The support that we see at homecoming parades now is much greater and more heartfelt than it was a few years ago. If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I will give an Essex example. In Basildon, the police estimated that some 10,000 people were present when the Royal Anglian Regiment returned. It is marvellous, when our brave service personnel come back from operations, to see their own communities across the country welcoming them home. I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for doing the right thing by his local regiment on Saturday.

Jake Berry: rose—

Gerald Howarth: rose—

Mark Francois: I shall give way first to my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry).

Jake Berry: I should like to reinforce the Minister’s point about the importance of Armed Forces day. It has given people like me and my constituents who have either no or relatively little military experience an opportunity to show our gratitude. In Rossendale and Darwen, we have been packing parcels that will be sent over to Afghanistan, and I have been overwhelmed by the public support for the project. It has given people an opportunity to say thank you, in their own small way.

Mark Francois: I endorse entirely what my hon. Friend says. Armed Forces day has gathered momentum in the past few years. It has become a bigger event in the calendar of every community around the country, and there will be 300 events across the United Kingdom on Saturday. I hope that it will gather even greater momentum in the months and years ahead. I shall now give way to a knight of the realm.

Gerald Howarth: My right hon. Friend has paid tribute to the excellent Colchester military wives choir, but can I assure him that he has not lived until he has heard the Aldershot military wives choir, which is even better? Unfortunately, it will not be performing here in Portcullis House as originally planned, but it will be available to perform in Aldershot, and I hope that I can encourage all my hon. Friends to come and hear it.

Mark Francois: I can assure my hon. Friend that I most certainly have lived, but we won’t go into that now. I do not want to start anything more than friendly competition between the different military wives choirs, but if his choir is anything like as good as the one from Colchester, it will have achieved a very high standard indeed.
	Another important point about Armed Forces day is that all the events will be slightly different, and personal to the groups and individuals involved. That is an important aspect of the day: it is people-led. The Ministry of Defence is supporting the day financially by allocating grants totalling some £320,000 to 100 of this year’s events, but we do not dictate the nature of the events. We do play an organisational role in supporting some of the larger gatherings, however. This year’s national event will be held in Nottingham, and the city has fully embraced its role as host. It will be attended by Their Royal Highnesses, the Duke and Duchess of Gloucester, the Secretary of State for Defence, the Minister for the
	Armed Forces, the Vice-Chief of the Defence Staff and, I am pleased to say, the shadow Secretary of State for Defence as well.
	Our support for members of the armed forces must be more than just symbolic. While it is important to pay tribute to them on Armed Forces day, we must make sure that we provide them with the practical support they deserve all year round. That is why this Government made honouring the armed forces covenant an important objective and why we enshrined in law its two key principles: that the armed forces community should not face disadvantage with regard to the provision of public and commercial services, and that special consideration is appropriate in some cases, particularly for those such as the injured and the bereaved who have given the most.
	The Secretary of State for Defence is now obliged to report annually to Parliament and to the country on the implementation of the covenant, and the first of these reports was published in December last year. It is important to this Government to make sure that we support our armed forces as best we can. The Chancellor demonstrated this by allocating £35 million from the fines levied on banks for attempting to manipulate the LIBOR interest rate to support the armed forces covenant, mainly through grants to service charities. The first tranche of this funding included £1 million for Fisher House, which provides accommodation for the families of wounded personnel being treated at Queen Elizabeth hospital in Birmingham. Fisher House was opened by His Royal Highness, the Prince of Wales, only last Friday; I was privileged to be able to attend and to have the opportunity to visit some of the wounded while I was there.

Brooks Newmark: I would like to join the whole House in celebrating our armed forces. An issue that concerns me—a number of my constituents have contacted me about this—is that a significant number of ex-armed forces personnel still find themselves homeless. Does the Minister share my concern, and what are the Government doing to try to deal with the homelessness of armed forces personnel?

Mark Francois: If my hon. Friend will allow me, I shall address that point specifically when I talk about the community covenant. I hope that I will be able to satisfy him when I get there.
	The covenant is a contract between the armed forces and the whole of society, and we understand that society is much larger than just central government, so I am pleased that initiatives such as the armed forces community covenant have gained such momentum. The community covenant is designed to deepen the integration of military and civil communities at the local level, ensuring that local authorities and other local organisations are well placed to understand and respond to the needs of their armed forces communities. To date, over 330 local authorities have signed up—including all in Scotland—and the total represents more than three quarters of all the local authorities in the United Kingdom. We are witnessing many examples of the benefits that this scheme can bring in practice.

James Morris: I commend the Government for their work on implementing the community covenant. I would like to pay tribute to both Dudley and Sandwell councils in the west midlands for signing up to the community charter. Does the Minister agree that it is important for both councils to take a proactive role in supporting legions in my constituency, such as the Halesowen British Legion, the Blackheath British Legion and the Cradley British Legion, which lies just outside my constituency, and to drive forward the work they do in the local community?

Mark Francois: I pay tribute to the two local councils in my hon. Friend’s constituency for signing the community covenant and to the Royal British Legion for everything it has done specifically to encourage the community covenant campaign. As I said, over 330 councils have already signed up. I understand that another cohort of councils is likely to sign up to it to coincide with Armed Forces day and that another cohort is then expected in the run-up to Remembrance day 2013. I hope that, by the end of this year, the vast bulk of local authorities in the UK will have signed a community covenant.

Gregory Campbell: In areas of the United Kingdom such as Northern Ireland, where there are some problems in trying to get the establishment of the community covenant and where those of a political disposition such as Sinn Fein and others might for whatever reason have a problem or an issue with it, does the Minister agree that whatever the resistance or opposition of those groups, they should at least have the maturity to stand aside in a mature, professional and even-handed fashion and allow the rest of the community—of all sides—to be able to pay tribute to our armed forces?

Mark Francois: I am well aware of that background, which is complex in some respects. I recently gave evidence to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee on precisely the issue raised by the hon. Gentleman. I also visited Northern Ireland, and was briefed in detail by the commander of 38 Brigade on the implementation of the covenant at ground level. In terms of practical day-to-day measures, it is working quite well. The after-care service is a very good example of the covenant in action in a bespoke Northern Ireland context. Nevertheless, I hope that, over time, local authorities in Northern Ireland find themselves able to sign the community covenant.
	Let me give some examples of the way in which the community covenant is working in practice. Hampshire county council is sharing best practice in the support of service children attending schools in its jurisdiction. Devon county council is identifying and supporting its staff members who are reservists, helping to ensure that their views and needs are represented. Westminster city council is changing its procedures on housing allocation so that service personnel will not slip down the list if they are posted overseas on operations. We encourage local authorities to give special consideration to veterans when considering the allocation of service housing; I hope that that helps to address the pertinent point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr Newmark). Cumulatively, those measures are having a positive impact on local armed forces communities.
	I think it fair to say that, when it comes to the community covenant, local government has well and truly stood up, and I pay tribute to the Local Government Association and to local government more broadly for all that they have done. The covenant is producing real and tangible results, and we are grateful for everything that local government has done to enhance that.

Andy Sawford: I agree with the Minister that local government is playing an ever more important role in supporting our armed forces community, but will he join me in welcoming other organisations, such as Community Union, of which I am a member? It has shown its commitment to the armed forces by pledging to become the armed forces union, reflecting its long association with the armed forces in this country.

Mark Francois: The hon. Gentleman told us earlier about the renaming of a local square, which I think is very appropriate. He also referred to something that had been mentioned earlier by the shadow Secretary of State. [Interruption.] Give me a moment, and I may be able to say something more. My understanding is that people who have left the armed forces are already perfectly at liberty to join a trade union, but the one mentioned by the hon. Gentleman is clearly an additional union that they can join if they wish.
	We have focused intensively on the provision of health care for our service personnel. We have a duty to provide those who put themselves in harm’s way on our behalf with the very best health care and support. I have taken a strong personal interest in the issue. Since I took up my post some nine months ago, I have visited the Defence Medical Services headquarters in Whittington, the Role 3 hospital at Camp Bastion, the Royal Centre for Defence Medicine at Queen Elizabeth hospital, Birmingham, the Defence Medical Rehabilitation Centre at Headley Court, the Battle Back Centre at Lilleshall—which uses sporting activity to improve recovery—the personnel recovery centres at Tedworth House and Colchester, the residential care centre run by Combat Stress at Tyrwhitt House in Leatherhead, and New Belvedere House, the Veterans Aid hostel in Limehouse in the east end of London. I hope the House will accept that I have been able to see for myself that real progress has already been made.
	The Government have announced the provision of an additional £6.5 million to ensure that next-generation microprocessor prosthetics—the so-called bionic legs—are available to injured serving personnel with above-the-knee and through-the-knee amputations when that is clinically appropriate. Those new legs are being fitted now. In his report, the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), recommended that a small number of multi-disciplinary centres should provide specialist prosthetic and rehabilitation services to ensure that veterans have access to the same high-quality care that the armed forces provide, and the Government have committed £6.7 million over the next two years to ensure that nine such NHS facilities are funded to provide that service.
	We have also made advances in the field of mental health. The signing of a strategic partnership by the MOD, the four national health agencies, including those
	of the devolved Administrations, and Combat Stress ensures that we will all work collaboratively to support the psychological needs of the armed forces community.
	There is shared MOD and Department of Health funding of the Big White Wall website. Serving personnel, veterans and their families are allowed to join the site anonymously if they wish, and it provides innovative, patient-centred support for those who may need it. Our armed forces can also draw on a process called trauma risk management, or TRiM. This is a peer group support system, developed by 3 Commando Brigade, that is helping to identify those who may be at risk of mental health problems and provide support to them. In addition, as troops go through their decompression period in Cyprus on return from operations, they are provided with briefings, including specifically on mental health. That is particularly helping to tackle the stigma associated with mental health issues.
	There has also been an uplift in the number of NHS mental health professionals providing veteran-focused mental health services. Working in partnership with Combat Stress, we now have around 50 professionals in place—more than the 30 originally recommended by the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire, in his “Fighting Fit” report.
	In addition, in terms of our obligation to provide wider, non-clinical support to the wounded, injured and sick, there was a landmark achievement earlier this month when the defence recovery capability reached its full operating capability. The DRC provides members of our armed forces with a tailored and holistic support package to help them readjust and recover from injury or illness, helping to make sure they are provided with the best care available. The Government have contributed a quarter of a billion pounds for that purpose, but this would not have been possible without the very significant contribution from service charities, in particular the Royal British Legion and Help for Heroes. This has been the largest single donation ever made by military charities, and we welcome it and the fact that that whole capability has now gone live.
	The shadow Secretary of State raised the subject of education. We take pride in the fact that our armed forces provide challenging and constructive education and training opportunities for young people, equipping them with valuable and transferable skills. The services are among the largest training providers in the UK, with excellent completion and achievement rates, and the quality of our training and education is highly respected.
	With support for education ranging from entry-level literacy and numeracy to full postgraduate degrees, service personnel are offered genuine progression routes which allow them to develop, gain qualifications and play a fuller part in society either in the armed forces or in the civilian world. We raise literacy and numeracy achievement progressively through a soldier’s career up to level 2—equivalent to GCSE grades A to C. Our basic training establishments are inspected by Ofsted, which has rated most of them good or better. The MOD works closely both with BIS, through its Skills Funding Agency, to support skills development, and with an extensive range of colleges and other providers to deliver the education that its soldiers need.
	The Army also enrols more than 95% of soldiers on an apprenticeship or advanced apprenticeship, with an achievement rate of almost 90%, the majority achieved within two years of enlistment. This is one of the largest employer-based apprenticeship programmes in the UK, encompassing over 35 different types of scheme or apprenticeship, and was most recently recognised by Ofsted as good. In the latest academic year, there were over 10,000 apprenticeship completions by armed forces personnel. I am sure the whole House will welcome that. Studying in the workplace and doing relevant contextualised learning has been shown to be very effective, particularly for some who did not have positive experiences at school.
	In addition, the Troops to Teachers programme offers a route for ex-service personnel to qualify as teachers and bring military values to the classroom. This is an excellent example of people taking values and experience they have learnt in the armed forces into the classroom and transferring them to our young people. There has been a successful pilot scheme, which is now being rolled out more widely across the country, particularly from the beginning of the new academic year in September.
	The right hon. Member for East Renfrewshire mentioned legislation to deal with the disrespecting of service personnel in public. He may recall a private Member’s Bill debate on the issue involving the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty). I understand what the right hon. Gentleman is seeking to achieve, although at the risk of chiding him gently, I would remind him that the previous Labour Government looked at exactly the same issue and rejected legislating on it. It would therefore appear that there has been something of a change of heart by Labour. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman attempts to intervene from a sedentary position, but I did give a commitment when I debated this issue with the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife on that Friday that we would examine it in the context of the armed forces covenant report 2013, and that commitment will be honoured. I just make the point that the Labour party considered whether to legislate on this issue a few years ago and decided not to do so.
	On legislation on reserves, the right hon. Gentleman has similarly sought to float the idea of anti-discrimination legislation for employers. As a number of hon. Members have pointed out, to make the growth of the reserves succeed it is important to carry employers with us and make maximum use of their good will. Threatening them with legislation from the outset may not be the best way to do that, but he will have to wait to see what we say in the White Paper, where we do refer to the issue.
	Let me say something about the situation post-2014 and then I will seek to bring my remarks to a close so that others can speak. The current level of backing for service charities is testament to the British public’s support for our armed forces. They understand that they have been at war in Iraq and Afghanistan for more than a decade, but that is changing. Afghan security forces are now assuming control of their own security, which represents a real milestone in our progress towards ending combat operations in Afghanistan. We are starting to bring our people back home, and they are rightly
	being welcomed as heroes as they return. This moment represents an opportunity. My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) mentioned the possibility of more clearly encapsulating the services we provide for veterans. We have work ongoing in the Department to do exactly that, and I hope to be able to say more in the months ahead.

Jim McGovern: We have rightly talked up how we deal with health care, housing and so on for veterans. What about soldiers in the Army who want to remain in it but have been told they are being made redundant? On Monday I had a call on my voicemail in my office from my constituent Mr John Bisset, who told me that his son has served for 16 years in the Black Watch but has now been told he will be made redundant next year. How do we deal with that? How do we justify it?

Mark Francois: We have had to take some extremely difficult decisions, and although I do not wish to spoil the bipartisan nature of this debate, the hon. Gentleman will know what lay behind many of them: the very difficult financial situation we inherited in the Ministry of Defence. Having made that point, I will not dwell on it. From memory, just over 60% of those affected in tranche 1 were applicants who had applied for redundancy, the tranche 2 figure was just over 70% and I believe the figure for tranche 3 was 84%, so a larger proportion of those in tranche 3 have applied to go voluntarily. However, we do realise that these are very difficult decisions and we provide support for all those leaving as redundees via the Career Transition Partnership, which has a very good track record of getting people into employment within six months or so of their leaving the forces. When people do leave the forces, we therefore do everything we can to support them, but I say again that we had to take some very difficult decisions because of what we were bequeathed.
	Let me return to the point I was making about the post-2014 situation. As we shift from a period of operations to one of contingency, we cannot and must not take the public’s support for our armed forces for granted. We need to put in place now processes and procedures that will endure well beyond the end of operations in 2014 to harness all that public support and put it to maximum good use. In that respect, we have been having detailed discussions with the business community on how best to co-ordinate and maximise its support for the armed forces. We hope to have more to say about that in the very near future, and given that the right hon. Member for East Renfrewshire has said that when we do the right thing he will support us, I hope we will enjoy his support for what we are going to do with business for our armed forces in the months and years ahead.
	The role of reserves in our defence is vital. Since 2003, there have been more than 25,000 mobilisations of reservists, serving alongside their regular counterparts, and 30 have paid the ultimate price in the service of their country. In the future, the reserves will be a fully integrated component of the armed forces and reserve elements will routinely be required on most military operations.

Madeleine Moon: Is the Minister aware that for Welsh people who particularly want to serve as reserves in the Royal Navy, the only opportunity
	to do so is at HMS Cambria? Unfortunately, that is purely a land-based opportunity and they can have no at-sea training. Will the Minister see whether it is possible to ensure that HMS Cambria can provide Welsh people with the opportunity for sea-based reserve training and opportunities?

Mark Francois: I cannot pre-empt the outcome of the White Paper, which I can assure the House will be with us very soon, but I will take away the specific point that the hon. Lady has raised on behalf of her constituents and seek to come back to her with a reply, which I will place in the Library of the House.
	In conclusion, defence of the realm is the first duty of any Government. The men and women of our armed forces and the families who support them make that responsibility a reality through hard work, bravery and the application of incredible skill. In character and aptitude, they represent the best people our society has to offer. It is only thanks to their sacrifice down through the years that we can live in a free and safe country and for that we should all be eternally grateful.
	We have done much in just a few years to develop the armed forces covenant: to improve health care, to support mental well-being and to tackle the many other issues that are important to servicemen and women and their families. But we need to do more, including, as I have said, harnessing business support for the armed forces covenant.
	On Armed Forces day this Saturday, we will pause to remember how important those people are. Then we will come back to this place with renewed vigour, concentrate on how we can support them better and get on with it.

Meg Munn: I am delighted to have the opportunity to take part in the debate. In Sheffield, we are very go-ahead—so go-ahead, in fact, that we had our armed forces and veterans day celebrations last Saturday. It was a pleasure and honour to be present and to have the opportunity to speak to many of our veterans, some of whom are now well into their ‘90s and served in the second world war. There were veterans from throughout the age ranges as well as cadets, embarking on what we hope will be a career in the armed forces.
	Sheffield is not just go-ahead with the day on which we celebrate our veterans and armed forces. We are very go-ahead with the community covenant that the city has signed—I have a copy in my hand. The community covenant is meant to involve as many people in the community as possible, and on Saturday, alongside stalls from all the different services, a stall was set up by Sheffield city council to encourage local people to sign up and make a difference.
	The covenant includes a commitment to recognise the contribution made by the armed services; to remember the sacrifices made by members of the armed forces community; to share knowledge, experience and expertise to provide help and advice to members of the armed forces community; and to encourage integration as people move from service life into civilian life.
	The covenant is not just a statement of aims, but an active process. I have a copy of an update, completed only this month, on the actions taken in Sheffield. For example, work is ongoing on a lettings policy that will recognise that those leaving the armed services have a priority need for housing. Other work is going on in schools, to see what can be done with the curriculum.
	There is a community covenant, which brings in many businesses in Sheffield. Companies offer work experience opportunities so that those leaving the services have the chance to try out a job before they apply for it. Support is also offered for making applications. We have big companies involved in that and small businesses also offer support to our armed forces. There are also opportunities for leisure, with Sheffield international venues making available a free life card to anybody from the services.
	It is not all sunshine and light, I am afraid. The first signature on the covenant is that of the lieutenant colonel of the 38th Signal Regiment, whose headquarters is in my constituency. The Signal Regiment has squadrons and troops in Aberdeen, Banbury, Croydon, Leeds, Kingston, Milton Keynes, Nottingham, Rugby and its headquarters in Sheffield. It plays an enormously important role. It provides information communication systems to the emergency services and local government in an emergency. That is not something that it just practises and train for, something that I have seen troops doing when I have attended their annual camp. This has been brought into action in recent periods. The regiment provided support to the Regular Army in the floods, and during the foot and mouth and fuel crises.
	I am concerned that one of the changes that the Government have seriously considered is moving the headquarters of this enormously important regiment from Sheffield. Members will have heard the spread of the regiment, and as it goes right from Scotland down to the south of England, one would think that Sheffield was a good place for its HQ, being somewhere in the middle.
	Perhaps more important, the community of Sheffield supports our armed forces, not just in words but in deeds. We recruit the armed forces and we have good cadet forces. We encourage our businesses to provide support for people to take part in the reserve forces and take on the kind of tasks that we have been discussing today. So I am most concerned that the Ministry of Defence, as part of its review, is considering removing that headquarters, taking a significant reservists’ base away from one of the largest cities in this country. That cannot be right. The Minister has time to change his mind on this, look at it again and do something about it.

Gerald Howarth: As the Member of Parliament for Aldershot, the home of the British Army, I am delighted to participate in this important debate today. I am delighted that Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition have brought forward this subject for debate. Like my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray), I could not possibly disagree with a single word in the motion. I hope that the newspapers and other media will take note that the House of Commons is today united in support of our armed forces, and that we have complete respect for them and all that they do
	for our country. That is a substantial change from what it was like when I first came here 30 years ago, when there was trench warfare between the parties—to use a military expression. That does not apply today.
	I salute the attempts that the previous Government made to engage the British people. I have no doubt that Armed Forces day, previously Veterans day, has served as a valuable focus to draw the public’s attention to the role played by our armed forces and to get behind them. That is evidenced by the huge amount of money that the public willingly give to a range of charities—not just Help for Heroes but wonderful charities such as Combat Stress. They have done a great job, as did General Lord Dannatt in encouraging the public to express their support for Her Majesty’s armed forces.
	We will be marking Armed Forces day with a military festival in Aldershot for the whole of next week, and the Aldershot military will be part of the celebrations. I pay tribute to the outgoing military commanders in Aldershot: Colonel Mike Russell, the garrison commander, who has done a fantastic job over a short time of liaising with the local community and running the garrison; and Brigadier Neil Baverstock, the commander of 145 Brigade, who might be more widely known to hon. Members and has also done a superb job. He retires from the Army this week to assume a role with a wonderfully outmoded title in the other place, which he will be starting next month.
	In addition to taking part in Armed Forces day, Aldershot will benefit from 750 extra troops who will be coming to us following the repatriation of our forces from Germany. With the new building that is going on in Aldershot and the forthcoming Aldershot urban extension, we have much about which to be encouraged regarding the Army in Aldershot.
	The context of our debate is more difficult, however. As the Minister of State, Ministry of Defence, my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), mentioned, we are having to make cuts to our armed forces, but that is difficult for Conservative Members, because we believe that the defence of the realm is the first duty of Government. However, the public finances that we inherited had been completely destroyed, so we have had to make unpleasant decisions. I hope that our withdrawal from Afghanistan will reduce the pressure on our armed forces, but I cannot be certain that Her Majesty’s Government will not be faced with other emergencies throughout the world. Given that the Prime Minister rightly wants the United Kingdom to play the significant role of trying to fashion the world in which we live, rather than simply reacting to it, our armed forces are unlikely to be kicking their heels on the parade ground in Colchester, Aldershot, Catterick or Tidworth.
	Our armed forces are respected not only at home but abroad, and they leverage fantastic influence for the United Kingdom. I welcome the defence engagement strategy, which I had some part in preparing when I was a Minister. There is a focus in the Ministry of Defence on that strategy and on how we leverage defence diplomacy to the advantage of the United Kingdom to influence events in the world, as well as in the wider context of supporting our defence industry. I am delighted that the Opposition’s excellent motion—I salute them for this—refers
	to the work force of the British defence industry and the support that they give to our armed forces, because they deserve recognition.
	There will be continuing debate in the House about the pressure on our armed forces. There is not time to go down that avenue today, save by quoting General Ray Odierno, the chief of staff of the United States army, who said a couple of weeks ago:
	“As the British Army continues to reduce in size we’ve had several conversations about keeping them integrated in what we’re trying to do…In a lot of ways they’re depending on us, especially in our ground capabilities into the future.”
	We must bear in mind the role that the British Army and our other services play throughout the world and alongside the United States. That is relevant to this debate as although we are talking about the armed forces covenant and support to the armed forces, we must be careful, because if there is not a worthwhile career in the armed forces, we will face difficulties.
	Time is short, so let me just say that our defence exports are fantastic. They were worth £9 billion last year, which was a record year, and Britain continues to dominate. However, I would also say to my right hon. Friend the Minister that the recent Supreme Court ruling was an absolute disgrace. It will do severe damage to the capacity of our commanders to ensure that they can make military decisions without being second-guessed by the courts.

Tom Blenkinsop: More than eight months ago one of my constituents contacted me, fearing that, come April this year, her sons would be left homeless, owing to what has become known as the bedroom tax. Like thousands of other people across Teesside and East Cleveland and the United Kingdom, my constituent, Alison, would have had to find an extra £100 per month because she was deemed to have spare rooms. For those hon. Members not familiar with Alison’s story and therefore questioning the relevance of the bedroom tax to this debate, I hasten to add that her two sons are both serving in the armed forces, one of them on the front line in Afghanistan as we speak. We have a proud military tradition in Teesside and East Cleveland and Alison’s story rightly began to attract attention from the local media.
	It was not too long ago that the armed forces covenant was enshrined in law. This was meant to recognise that the whole nation has a moral obligation to members of the armed forces and their families, and it established how they should expect to be treated and to redress the disadvantages that the armed forces community faces in comparison with other citizens.
	Alison has been a tenant of the same housing association for nearly two decades, and in this home she had single-handedly brought up her twin boys. Despite this history, she spoke to her housing officer about moving to a smaller property, only to be told that the association does not have enough one-bedroom properties to meet the needs of everyone. Alison was not opposing the Government’s policy out of stubbornness. She was trying her hardest to adapt to it but, as we are finding out across the country, the policy is one of the most ill-thought out that this Government have implemented, and the appropriate accommodation simply is not available.
	In the months after Alison initially brought her situation to my attention, national interest in the issue understandably peaked. Alison’s case was even raised by the Leader of the Opposition during Prime Minister’s questions, in which the Prime Minister insisted that the changes were “fair”. Nevertheless, in early March this year, the coalition Government performed an apparent U-turn when they made the following exemption:
	“Adult children who are in the armed forces”—
	including the reserve forces—
	“but who continue to live with parents will be treated as continuing to live at home, even when deployed on operations…In addition housing benefit recipients will not be subject to a non-dependent deduction, that is, the amount that those who are working are expected to contribute to the household expenses, until an adult child returns home.”—[Official Report, 12 March 2013; Vol. 560, c. 9WS.]
	Members may now be thinking that that is an excellent outcome and that the Government have realised their mistake and put it right, as did I, but unfortunately Alison’s story, and more than likely that of many others like her, does not end with this apparently successful change in policy.
	It has been almost three months since the bedroom tax came into being and I am sure Members will have noticed the impact of the policy on their work load. Alison’s family has still been hit by the bedroom tax and she is now in rent arrears. The rushed U-turn has left the new rules unclear, with local authorities interpreting them with varying degrees of success. Unfortunately, because of the way in which the Government have worded the regulations, only a tiny number of personnel, primarily reservists, will be exempt. If they lived in barracks prior to going away on operations and/or prior to commencing pre-deployment training, the Department for Work and Pensions holds that they are not the claimant’s non-dependent children. Operations include deployment abroad, pre-deployment and the debriefing process at end of deployment. Therefore, the exemption applies only to a small number of people, and DWP Ministers have confirmed this in response to written questions. To all intents and purposes, the Government seem to be redefining what adult children who are members of the armed forces register as their homes.
	It is true that people can have a number of residences. However, for tax purposes, only one home or domicile is used. If, as seems to be suggested by Ministers who have responded to questions on this issue from me and from the shadow Work and Pensions Minister, the Government consider barracks the home of adult children who usually live there, the barracks should be used for tax purposes also. The regulations suggest to working-class young men and women that joining the forces may jeopardise their parents’ home—hardly a wise recruitment strategy.
	It is grossly unfair to differentiate on this basis. It is a very mean-spirited technicality. The motion we are here to debate today is one to celebrate and commemorate our armed forces, and the armed forces covenant is a key way for us to do this. It recognises that the whole nation has a moral obligation to members of the armed forces and their families, and it establishes how they should expect to be treated. If that is the law, the least our young adults serving in the armed forces deserve is to have their ability to live in their homes with their
	families respected, and not to have to worry about their parents while they are on operations and serving their country.
	The Government urgently need to clarify their guidelines that were supposed to exempt the families of members of the armed forces from the bedroom tax, yet Ministers seem to have created another discrepancy that is a direct attack on those who are putting their lives on the line to keep us all safe. The Government cannot get away with statements that appear to resolve an issue but which, in reality, are deliberately intended to be obtuse so as not to deliver any such promises. I hope Ministers will be willing to meet me and other concerned MPs to exempt our armed forces finally from this tax.

Bob Russell: I congratulate Her Majesty’s Opposition on the spirit of the motion and both the right hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Mr Murphy) and the Minister of State, Ministry of Defence, the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), on their speeches. In endorsing everything said from both Front Benches, I wish to put on the record my appreciation of 16 Air Assault Brigade, which is based at the Colchester garrison. I wish to praise all the armed forces charities, including Combat Stress, Veterans Aid, the Royal British Legion, Help for Heroes, ABF The Soldiers Charity, formerly the Army Benevolent Fund, SSAFA and a host of others, including regimental charities.
	The Minister referred to the military wives choirs, of which there are now about 80, which I think is an incredible achievement in a relatively short period. I pay tribute to all those choirs. I am particularly proud of the Colchester military wives choir, because earlier this month it had the great honour of representing this country and the military wives choir movement at the Canadian international military tattoo in Hamilton, Ontario. I know that they were warmly welcomed because I was there cheering them on.
	I referred earlier to military bands, which I believe are an important part of the fabric of this country that bring together the armed forces and the general public. In 1997 there were 29 Army bands, but today there are 22. Only last week, in answer to a written question, the Minister said:
	“The number of army bands is currently under review as part of the Future Music 2020 re-organisation programme, although no decision has yet been made.”—[Official Report, 19 June 2013; Vol. 564, c. 720W.]
	I sincerely trust that there will be no further cuts.

Bob Stewart: Military bands actually have another role in battle. I used my military band to calm down a situation. In particular, I remember a piper playing on the roof of my building, which stopped the battle completely. People were perhaps wondering what the noise was, but it worked amazingly well. Military bands are very important in war.

Bob Russell: I thank my hon. and gallant Friend for that helpful contribution.
	Earlier this month the Treasury put out some ignorant comments about the number of Army horses and tanks. Following that to its logical conclusion, I assume that next year’s trooping the colour will take place on bikes.

Andrew Robathan: The hon. Gentleman said that those comments came from the Treasury, but I gently point out to him that the person who actually made them is a member of his part of the coalition.

Bob Russell: The Minister is absolutely right, but of course the briefing was given by Treasury officials. I do not think that the Defence Minister is saying that he is never briefed by his officials. If that is the case, it is a very worrying situation.
	With regard to the armed forces covenant, the Defence Committee, of which I am a member, recently conducted an inquiry into education for the children of service personnel. There is a conflict between the armed forces covenant and the Education Act, both of which are laws of this country, and that conflict needs to be addressed. Other conflicts are emerging already between the armed forces covenant and the definition of social housing for single former military personnel. I think that there has to be a ruling on that, because some local authorities are interpreting it differently from what the armed forces covenant means. I am concerned that the community covenant might, in some cases, be paying lip service, rather than being a reality. We need to look at that.
	We also need to look again at serving Commonwealth soldiers being obliged to leave compulsorily on health grounds and then not being treated by the armed forces covenant. Again, the covenant is not being fair in the way the financial packages for voluntary redundancies are being looked at. I have a constituent who accepted the terms of redundancy based on his years of service, only to have the financial package withdrawn after he agreed to leave. I think that case might end up in the courts, so I will leave it there.
	The armed forces covenant has a long way to go with regard to the condition of Army family housing. The Government have been able to find money to upgrade former military housing for use by civilian families, which I support, but they claim that they do not have the money to upgrade Army housing. I recognise that every pound of public money spent on those houses boosts their value for Annington Homes—in a shameful act, the last Conservative Government privatised the houses and in 13 years the last Labour Government failed to deal with the issue, although I raised it on many occasions.
	Will the Ministry of Defence look at how the pay and dine operation works in practice? A car will run only if it has petrol in the tank; our soldiers can operate at full capacity only if they eat the right amount of food at the right times and in the right quantities.
	Having praised those in uniform, I want also to praise the civilian work force, without whom our armed forces could not operate. I include the Defence Support Group, the MOD police who under successive Governments have taken a massive cut; in my constituency, 33 MOD police officers have been reduced to zero. I should also mention other guard services, the MOD fire service and all the support staff—not forgetting Garrison FM, which operates in the principal garrison towns of this country. I wish to broaden the wider military family and include the cadet forces.
	The reduction in the size of the Army is not good news. I repeat what I said to the Prime Minister:
	“On the Prime Minister’s watch, the Army will reduce to its smallest size since 1750 and will be half the size it was at the time
	of the Falklands war. Does he accept that history is not kind to Prime Ministers who are perceived to have left our country without a strong defence capability?”—[ Official Report , 11 July 2012; Vol. 548, c. 309.]
	I do not think that trying to plug the gaps of a smaller regular force with reservists is the way forward. I support reservists, of course I do—we have fantastic Territorial Army people in my constituency. However, cutting the Regular Army and trying to plug the gap with Army reservists is not the solution. The move is being driven by the Treasury. Those at Treasury questions today will know the response to my question about how many civilian employees at HM Treasury had volunteered to join the Army reservists since requests for civilians were made in January this year: zero.
	Armed Forces day in my constituency was launched yesterday in the town hall, with the mayor and garrison commander in attendance. The town and garrison have excellent joint facilities, including the athletics track and the Phoenix club house, which I opened earlier this month.
	I end by praising the last Government for providing the new Merville barracks, the best in the country, and welcoming the current Government’s proposals for the first world war commemorations, which will commence in August next year.

Ian Austin: I want to pay tribute to all the men and women who serve in the armed forces and say how important it is that debates such as this are held so that we can express our gratitude for the service they give, the risks they face and the bravery they show on behalf of the rest of us.
	As I said earlier, the people of Dudley make a huge contribution to the armed forces through the Royal Mercian and Lancastrian Yeomanry, a Territorial Army regiment with a base at Vicar street in Dudley. The regiment has a history in the region dating back to 1794, and A Squadron has had a base on Vicar street for more than 20 years. It attracts recruits from across the black country, having recently taken on 47 trainees; it is processing another 60 at the moment. Two dozen volunteers are currently on active service in Afghanistan. It is a popular and expanding squadron in a popular and expanding regiment with deep roots in the local and regional communities. In fact, it is one of the best recruited yeomanry regiments in the whole Territorial Army.
	Ministers will be pleased to hear that the regiment is making exactly the sort of contribution they are asking for as they seek to double the size of the TA in the next few years. However, under current proposals, the regiment could be disbanded to make way for a new Scottish regiment. A Squadron in Dudley would be merged with B Squadron in Telford, and the Telford base would cease to be a regional headquarters, becoming part of the Royal Yeomanry regiment based in Croydon. The Telford squadron would end up paired with a new Queen’s Dragoon Guards regiment in the regular Army, based in Norfolk. Together with other changes to squadrons in the midlands, this means that the RMLY would be disbanded, despite its history and the contribution that people in Dudley and the wider black country make to it. The midlands would lose half of its five squadrons and a regional HQ. If we lost the Vicar street base,
	people who have done a full day’s work in Dudley would have to travel 30 or 40 miles to do their training and fulfil their responsibilities in Telford, which is unlikely.
	Dudley would lose a central part of the community at the heart of events that unify people in the town, such as Remembrance day and our St George’s day parade, all to create a Scottish yeomanry, with great difficulty and huge expense, even though similar plans have failed twice before. Even if bases in Dudley and Telford are maintained under the new structures, I worry that they could be at risk in the long term because local reserve squadrons are best managed locally, not from a headquarters 140 or 150 miles away.
	Hannah Bragg has created a petition against disbandment, gaining huge support and over 1,300 signatures already. However, I urge the Minister not only to listen to what she has said, and what I am saying, but to seek the advice of the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Mr Swayne), a former commanding officer of A Squadron in Dudley. Will the Minister visit Dudley to see for himself the brilliant work that is being carried out at Vicar street? Everyone accepts the case for pairing reserve units with their regular counterparts, but other alternatives have been proposed. What thought has been given to, for example, preserving the RMLY and pairing it with the Light Dragoons for closer co-operation? I hope that he will consider the alternatives.
	In their responses to questions I have tabled and letters I have written, Ministers have so far refused to comment on the future of the regiment. I very much hope that the Minister will take this opportunity to guarantee the future of the Territorial Army in Dudley, and guarantee the future of the RMLY, so that my constituents can continue to make the huge contribution to our nation’s defence that they have done so far. Will he join me in congratulating the 47 new recruits and the 60 new leads that are being processed? Does he agree that that is exactly the sort of contribution that he wants local communities to make if we are to hit this Government’s targets?
	The people of Britain show huge respect and support for the work of our armed forces. Nowhere is this more true than in Dudley, where our local squadron and the wider regiment are at the heart of the community and have the freedom of the borough. It is hugely important that the TA is not reorganised in a way that puts that in jeopardy.

Caroline Dinenage: I, too, welcome this debate and this opportunity to celebrate our armed forces.
	Very few communities are more shaped by their relationship with our armed forces than my constituency of Gosport. One need only look at the scale of our community engagement in events such as the Remembrance Sunday parade, where thousand of people turn out to watch representatives from all our military establishments parade through the town. Last year saw the parade for the 30th anniversary of the Falklands war, when veterans from around the UK came to the town of Gosport. Indeed, two of my favourite Doorkeepers from the House of Commons were among those who took the time to parade through Gosport. The Falklands Veterans Foundation is based in Gosport, offering invaluable support to our brave veterans.
	Everywhere you look in my constituency, Mr Deputy Speaker, there are historic buildings that tell the story of our armed forces through the ages. You may not be aware that it has even crept into our daily language. The expression “Up the creek without a paddle”, or more colourful variations thereof, originated from Haslar creek, where back in Nelson’s day wounded sailors were taken up to the Royal Navy Hospital Haslar to recover, or otherwise. Of course, in those days they were not necessarily as keen to be part of the Royal Navy as people might be these days. They were held prisoner so that they did not desert while being treated, and some tried to escape by going through the sewers to the creek. I hope that these days people are much more inclined to remain part of our armed forces.
	It is estimated that the armed forces community in Gosport comprises about 5,500 people. We have a very proud military wives choir—Portsmouth and Gosport military wives choir—and I went to hear them record tracks for their album. Fortunately they did not make me sing, which would have been a disaster for all concerned.
	Gosport also has a high proportion of people who are in receipt of armed forces pensions. At one in 16, it is the highest proportion in Hampshire and the second highest in England.
	The armed forces community covenant was signed by Hampshire county council in June 2011. Last November, on Remembrance Sunday, the Gosport armed forces community covenant was established to formally acknowledge Gosport’s long affiliation with the armed forces. Those covenants are voluntary statements of mutual support between the civilian community and serving and former members of the armed forces and their families. Above all, they are about respect underlined with action.
	The demands imposed on the armed forces in the course of their duties are unique and set them apart from others who serve and protect our society. However, there is the potential for disadvantage if national and local government policies, as well as local communities, do not tackle the problems that military families encounter.
	One of those issues is the opportunity to balance military and family life. That is a particular problem in the Royal Navy, which has the most unfavourable harmony arrangements of the three main services. That is why it is so important that shore-based military training is delivered as close as is possible to the big military communities. In Gosport, the marine engineering training at HMS Sultan, which is rated outstanding by Ofsted, gives Navy families a rare opportunity to live as a normal family, with husbands and wives coming home every evening.
	Another big challenge is service mobility, which risks disadvantaging personnel and their dependants with regard to access to local public services, such as doctors surgeries, schools and social housing. The rate of home ownership is lower among service personnel than in the nation as a whole. Accessing school places has always been a challenge. The pupil premium that forces families now receive is hugely welcome. However, accessing school places continues to be a challenge. In big military communities, it is difficult for schools to maintain places for forces families. One of my constituents has five children at four different schools, which causes enormous difficulty.
	The final problem relates to ongoing treatment and support. Serving in the armed forces comes with the inherent risk of serious physical and mental injury, which can result in the need for ongoing treatment and welfare support for service people and their families. I have talked about the legacy of the military buildings in Gosport, but there is a legacy in the people too. Many of my constituents have served in the armed forces. Many have given up the best years of their life and their good health for our country. Tragically, this country has not always given enough back. I have been troubled on countless occasions by the stories of ex-service personnel who have not received the help that they need to make the difficult transition from the front line to civvy street.
	Many community organisations in my constituency help service personnel who have not made that transition very well. The veteran mentors scheme that is run by the Hampshire probation trust helps former service people who find themselves on the wrong side of the law by giving them mentors who have also been in the armed forces. As we all know, the armed forces, and the Royal Navy in particular, have their own language. I often receive e-mails that say “BZ” at the end. As you will know, Mr Deputy Speaker, that means “well done”. I hope that those people feel the same way after I have finished making this speech. It is important that military personnel are mentored by people who share that common language.
	I am proud of some of the things that the Government have achieved. Taking the armed forces covenant seriously has been a great achievement. I am proud that they are finally addressing the inequality with regard to medals for Arctic convoy and Bomber Command veterans. As a country, we are right to be proud of our military past. We can now be proud of the future that we are securing for our service people and veterans.

Madeleine Moon: It is apposite that we are having this debate today, because this evening I will have the huge pleasure of hosting an RAF Bomber Command dinner as vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for the armed forces with responsibility for the RAF. This evening, we will welcome Douglas Radcliffe MBE, a wireless operator; Commodore Charles Clarke OBE, a navigator; Alf Huberman, Bob Gill DFM and Harry Irons DFC, air gunners; Doug Newham LVO DFC, an observer; and Les Temple, who was on special duties, all of whom were part of Bomber Command during the last war.
	The House will remember that Bomber Command played a crucial part in maintaining this country’s freedom: 55,000 airmen lost their lives during the second world war, a truly staggering death rate of 44.4%; 8,500 were wounded in action; and 10,000 were captured and interned. They were very young men—the average age was 22. The group I am hosting this evening are, on the whole, very old men, but men with a proud history of service to their country. I am pleased that many colleagues will be joining me to welcome them here to this House tonight.
	Armed Forces day is very important. Not only are we recognising the past, but we are looking at what we do for our armed forces in the present. My local authority, Bridgend county borough council, has signed a community
	covenant, and the leader of the council, Mel Nott, has become our veterans champion. We take that responsibility very seriously. On Friday, I will be attending a Royal Navy eve of Armed Forces day reception at Coopers Field in Cardiff. The event will include a cadet field gun demonstration. I am sure that the hon. Member for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell) will be pleased to know that the Royal Marine band corps of drums will be playing, and there will be a presentation by the Royal Navy presentation team. The following day, I will be joining veterans, councillors and community organisations who are coming together for the Armed Forces day parade in Bridgend.
	I raised a number of issues in an Adjournment debate earlier this year. Following that debate, it was brought to my attention that the Armed Forces Act 2006 contains an anomaly for which I can find no reasonable explanation. The Act contains a list of what are known as schedule 2 offences, and requires a commanding officer to report those offences to service police. Explicitly spelled out in the Act is the exclusion of sections 3, 66, 67 and 71 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 from schedule 2. These sections cover sexual assault, exposure, voyeurism and sexual activity in a public lavatory. This means that if an individual reports any of these offences to their commanding officer, there is no requirement in law for that report to be referred to the service police—the report can stay within the chain of command. I can find no explanation for that. It was not clarified in the Public Bill Committee’s deliberations, and the House of Commons Library was unable to shed any light on it. To date, I have not received a reply to a letter I wrote to the Minister on 23 April on this issue.
	In the civilian world, no individual would be required to report a sexual assault to their employer; they would go straight to the police. Their military counterparts are at a distinct disadvantage. I draw the attention of Ministers to the YouTube clip of Lieutenant-General David Morrison speaking on sexual offences in the Australian military. It is a fantastic clip, in which he makes it very clear that sexual offences have no place in the Australian military. He says that armed forces personnel should either
	“sign up or get out.”
	I hope we take that stance in this country. Men and women must be able to serve with equality and safety in our armed forces.
	I have also talked of the need for a service ombudsman. Yet again, the Service Complaints Commissioner has said that the service complaints system is not working efficiently, effectively or fairly. There seems to be resistance from the chain of command, who fear it would undermine their authority. We cannot continue with a halfway house. Our servicemen and women deserve an ombudsman who can take forward their complaints, so that they can have a right to justice.

Penny Mordaunt: I draw the House’s attention to my interests as a member of the reserve forces.
	I start by paying tribute to all our armed forces, all who support them and, given the flavour of previous speeches, to the awesome Portsmouth military wives choir, but it will be no surprise to the Minister that I wish to focus my speech on the issue of the Service
	Complaints Commissioner. I am extremely pleased with the work that Ministers have done on this, and with their recognition of the importance of the role and of the fact that it must be reformed. It is vital that we get this to work, especially in very serious cases such as physical and sexual assault, or where psychological and medical help is needed, or where the family is in need too.
	In one case I have dealt with, the armed forces completely failed a young soldier who was beaten, burned and sexually assaulted by men in his unit and, after making a complaint, was placed back in the unit with the assailants. He received no help, despite two suicide attempts. When he was returned to his parents’ home, the family were unable to cope with his considerable distress and no help was made available to them.
	This experience, and evidence gathered by the Defence Select Committee, has led me to conclude that the role must be able to compel the armed forces to act. The commissioner’s role must be to intervene when a complaint is live, to be proactive and to be able to spot trends, act on them and head off trouble. Arguments deployed against the Service Complaints Commissioner having an ombudsman role have included that it would interfere with the chain of command and that the role would constrict the complaints commissioner from acting on live complaints. The Defence Committee has outlined how both of these concerns can be met within an ombudsman role.
	I am pleased with the work that Ministers have done on this issue and that they have made it a priority. I believe that they are extremely sympathetic to reforming this position, but I know from the few years that I have spent in this place that a Minister knowing the right thing to do is the easy part; it is making it happen that is the tough part.
	May I take this opportunity to urge the ministerial team to pursue the request to beef up the role? The British Legion has highlighted that an ombudsman role would be much better understood by service personnel themselves. It must be able to act on live complaints and to compel the armed forces to act and a complaint must not necessarily close if a service man or woman is killed. Where there are systematic problems in our armed forces, they must be dealt with proactively. Our armed forces have nothing to fear from an ombudsman role and everything to gain. I urge Ministers to pursue this agenda relentlessly. We must settle it way in advance of a new Service Complaints Commissioner coming into post.

Jonathan Reynolds: It is a real pleasure to speak in this debate. There is an incredible amount of expertise on and passion for the armed forces in Parliament, as we have heard today, and as the secretary of the all-party parliamentary group for the armed forces, it is a privilege for me to be able to see that passion regularly come through in the events that we organise.
	I would like to make a few points. They include: the importance of the armed forces as institutions in this country; their changing nature, as the Government seek to replace professional servicemen and women with an increased reserve force following the strategic defence
	and security review; and the challenges and opportunities that will confront us as we approach the end of over a decade of expeditionary operations.
	Since becoming an MP, I have had the opportunity to increase my familiarity with the armed forces, particularly with the Army, a great deal. I have visited British Army Training Unit Suffield in Canada, the armour centre in Bovington, the Army Foundation College for our youngest personnel and, of course, Camp Bastion in Afghanistan. I have spent time everywhere, from my local recruiting office in Manchester to the Defence Academy at Shrivenham. I have done that because if I have to make decisions about voting to deploy British service personnel abroad—putting them in harm’s way—I want to know first hand about the training, equipment and preparation they have received.
	The high standard of training and the professional identity of armed forces are extremely impressive. The British armed forces are among the best—if not the best—in the world. I believe that that strength comes from three things: the quality of our recruits, the quality of the training they receive, and the common identity that is instilled in our people by the units themselves and, in particular, the regimental system. I am extremely proud of the regiments associated with my constituency: the Mercians, the Duke of Lancaster’s Regiment and the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers.

Bob Stewart: Everybody in the House is worried about the recent High Court ruling, which has already been alluded to. It is extremely difficult for commanding officers to make decisions that put their men or women in peril, but now they have to consider whether they might be dragged before a court of law for a decision they make in good faith and in the height of a battle. The House has to sort this out and direct the law accordingly.

Jonathan Reynolds: I appreciate that intervention from the hon. and gallant Gentleman, who speaks with particular authority on this matter. I am glad he has had the opportunity to put that on the record, and of course he can give us a greater insight than perhaps anyone else in the House on that point.
	The people I represent have tremendous pride and faith in the regiments associated with my constituency, which unfortunately has had to contend with a considerable number of casualties in Afghanistan. I have seen how the regiments continue to support those families and how they become part of their own family, but I do not think that this is widely understood or appreciated by the public. I cannot begin to understand how a family must feel when, knowing that their child is away on operational duty, they open the door to see military personnel standing there and realise that it cannot be good news. When I talk to families in my constituency who have been in that position, I am impressed by how the regiments continue to support them. I believe that all the branches of the armed forces, but particularly the Army, are fundamentally important national institutions, and part of being a one-nation party means promoting those national institutions that bind the country together. The Army is a particularly fine example of such an institution.
	The make-up of the Army is changing considerably under the Government’s plans following the strategic defence and security review. The Army will now comprise
	a smaller regular force and be more dependent on reserves, as we have heard. I have the greatest of respect for our reserve forces, especially given the role they have played in Iraq and Afghanistan, but this will pose substantial challenges. We should carefully consider what the effects might be on our reservists, their families and their employers, particularly if we find ourselves embarking on another military deployment of a similar scale to the one now drawing to an end in Afghanistan.
	Let us consider what we ask of our reserves: we expect them to train in their spare time to reach the same standard as full-time professionals; to be prepared to put their civilian lives and civilian jobs on hold for lengthy tours of duty, possibly involving combat; and then to slot back seamlessly into civilian life at the end of it, only perhaps to do the same again within a year. That puts a real strain on people, so I urge the Government to consider whether the harmony guidelines that exist to maintain a balance between time on deployment and ordinary service will still be suitable for a military comprising a greater number of reservists. We might also have to consider stronger statutory protections for reservists who serve on operations and to promote and praise employers who correctly recognise that it is strongly in their interests to support employees who wish to do this.
	The SDSR is not the only reason we should give serious thought to our armed forces over the next few years. As we near the end of our involvement in more than a decade of war in Afghanistan, it will soon be an appropriate juncture to ask what lessons we can learn from that deployment. I am not seeking a grandstanding public inquiry or suggesting a political reckoning; I am simply saying that we must critically evaluate how we have fought and managed this difficult conflict. Do we believe, for instance, that the strategic decisions made were the right ones? Did we initially get our force rotation right? Did the frequent change of tactics with each new deployment hinder our initial progress?
	We have made real improvements in Afghanistan, but that has come at a great cost to this country in blood and treasure, so we owe it to constituencies such as mine, which have suffered a lot, and to the armed forces as a whole to evaluate the mission critically and to seek to make improvements for the future. We can never do enough to make our people safer, better cared for and better equipped to succeed.
	This Saturday, as we celebrate the contribution our armed forces make to our country, hon. Members should consider how we can maintain the identities and institutions that are fundamental to the strength of our armed forces; what new issues we need to address as reservists play an ever greater role; and what we can learn from more than a decade of fighting in Afghanistan. I am extremely proud of our armed forces, and I believe we must honour our duties to them as dutifully as they protect us.

John Baron: We can disagree with nothing in the motion, but without wishing to break the consensual mood of the House, I think that this is too good an opportunity not to ask at
	least some questions of Ministers, in the hope that they will at least reflect on them and perhaps return later.
	I am concerned, as are a number of Members on these Benches, that by keeping on cutting defence expenditure, we risk creating imbalances on a variety of fronts. Can it be right, for example, that the budgets of Departments dealing with health, welfare and international aid are being protected, if not expanded, as a percentage of Government expenditure? That puts disproportionate pressure on other Departments, such as Defence, when trying to save costs. I also wonder whether imbalances are being created in regard to our transatlantic relationship. Our defence capability is one of the key anchors of that relationship, but it is not a one-way ticket. There are obligations on both sides, including our own. If we keep shaving our defence capability, might we put elements of that relationship at risk?
	I also suggest that we might be creating imbalances in other areas, such as our capability to meet our foreign policy objectives, whatever they might be, and defend our interests overseas. The House knows that I have not been supportive of our military interventions over the past decade, but let us put that to one side. There have been moments during those interventions when our resources have not matched our ambitions. It was not the fault of the troops on the ground, but in Iraq and Afghanistan in particular the necessary resources were lacking, and that had a knock-on effect on our ability to achieve our objectives.
	I have other concerns but, as an ex-soldier, I shall focus on the Army. The plan to disband 20,000 regulars before knowing whether the plan to recruit 30,000 reservists to take their place will work is high risk, given that we do not know whether those reservists will be able to plug the gap from a capability point of view, or from a boots-on-the-ground point of view. I ask Ministers to ensure that that issue is centrally addressed in the forthcoming White Paper. There are key questions that need answering very soon, because redundancies are taking effect as we speak, and we do not know whether the plan will work.
	There is a real danger that Government proposals will prove a false economy, in financial terms and in terms of military capability. Let us take cost savings as an example. I am conscious of the figure of £1.8 billion over 10 years, and more details will follow in the White Paper, but at the moment the Government are long on promise and short on costings and details. They have admitted in the Green Paper that it costs more to train reservists than regulars. The financial incentives being offered to regulars to join the reserves mean that they will be on a better scale of pay than a serving brigadier, if we include the £5,000 sign-up bonus, the bounty, the daily rate and so forth. There is also the question of civilian salaries being matched, although I am aware that the Government are considering capping an element of that. Again, we need to see the details. And all that is before we even consider the fact that the reservists will not be deployable in their first year.
	I have already raised the question of the number of reservists that will be required. According to Ministry of Defence figures, the present Territorial Army mobilisation rate is 40%. If we apply that to the 20,000 regulars, we will need 50,000 reservists. I look forward to seeing the details of how that magic figure of 40% is going to be increased. It will take a concerted effort to
	achieve a mobilisation rate of much more than 40%, given that many people in the Army believe that we are not even hitting 40% at the moment.
	There is also the question of the capability gap. In the 1980s, when many of us served, the TA did a very good job that basically involved reservists being transported out to Germany, digging a trench and waiting for the Soviet or Warsaw pact forces to arrive. Today, asymmetric warfare is becoming the norm. The skills base will become much higher, and our requirements will be much more demanding, yet I understand that the number of training days is being increased to 40 overall—an increase of only five days. I question that on the capability front, particularly when those forces are going to be mobilised as groups rather than as add-ons. That factor must be considered.

Julian Lewis: Does my hon. Friend share my fear that, with the scale of priorities we have at the moment, there is a danger that if we reduce the size of the Army much more, they will all be able to fit into the single first High Speed 2 train?

John Baron: Let us hope it is not a one-way ticket!
	Let me finish with a concern some of us have about the potentially distorting effect on the ground. Excellent, well recruited battalions, such as the 2nd Battalion the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers, are being axed, while more poorly recruited battalions are being saved. It is costing millions of pounds to keep over-strength battalions up to the mark. Such a policy is, in many respects, simply reinforcing failure.
	In conclusion, I think this is a high-risk policy, and I ask Ministers to make sure that they cover the base very carefully. In my view, we need to see concrete evidence that the reservist plan will take effect and will work—before we let the regular battalions go. Here we are dealing with the defence of the realm, and this is happening when many countries not necessarily friendly to the west are arming and increasing their expenditure on defence. No one here can tell when or where the next threat will come from. I therefore ask Ministers to consider these points very carefully.

Lindsay Hoyle: There are three Members still to speak and we have only 15 minutes before the winding-up speeches.

Jim Shannon: I rise to thank the shadow Minister and the Opposition for bringing this motion before the House for debate today. Every Member will be aware of my support for the armed forces. I have been a member of the Ulster Defence Regiment and the Territorial Army in the past and I have had the opportunity to travel with other Members through the armed forces parliamentary scheme. That allowed me to see a glimpse of what our armed forces do. I have been on a Navy ship and been to Afghanistan, and I have had the privilege to watch the intensive and back-breaking training done by each man and woman who serve, whether it be at Catterick, Sandhurst, Canada, Kenya or Cyprus. I am a keen supporter of our armed forces, and I will continue to be so.
	We must all agree today that the armed forces are deserving of our respect, support and help. The veterans’ flag will fly this Saturday in the town of Newtonards in my Strangford constituency. Through the hard work done by the Ards borough council and the Reserve Forces and Cadets Association Northern Ireland, a veterans’ event has been arranged for September this year.
	I am pleased that the motion makes reference to the armed forces covenant—a subject to close to my heart, for which the Democratic Unionist party has been pressing in Northern Ireland. Let me quote from a debate on Northern Ireland affairs:
	“A recent report published by the World Health Organisation on post-traumatic stress disorder found that Northern Ireland had a higher incidence of PTSD and trauma-related illnesses than any other conflict-related country in the world”—
	ahead of Lebanon and Israel. The study showed that
	“nearly 40% of people in Northern Ireland had been involved in some kind of conflict-related traumatic incident.”—[Official Report, 21 November 2012; Vol. 553, c. 642.]
	The survey estimated that about 18,000 people in Northern Ireland had developed mental health problems as a result. There is already a huge demand on relevant services from across Northern Ireland as a result of trauma-related illnesses arising from this conflict, which underlines the seriousness of the issues. This tells us that there is such a heavy strain on these services that they are not able to take care of our service personnel, which we should be able to do.
	We need a covenant in place. That is the issue to which I ask the Government to respond. We need our Government to follow this through with specific funding, as befits MOD issues, as well as action to bring Northern Ireland up to the standard of the rest of the United Kingdom. We have heard much about what is happening in England, much about what is happening in Scotland, but I want to see the same thing happening for Northern Ireland.
	I was dismayed to read a report of what was said—I pay no disrespect to the Minister of State, Ministry of Defence, the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois)—in the Commons Welsh Affairs Committee. When asked about the Welsh level of care in comparison with other devolved nations, he said:
	“We have a particular challenge in Northern Ireland because of some of the Sinn Fein-run authorities’ views on the covenant and what it represents. In Northern Ireland, this is particularly sensitive and difficult, so if you’re talking about a score card we would have to take that into account.”
	That is not acceptable to me or to the people of Northern Ireland; nor is it acceptable to the families of service personnel who come back changed and need specialised and specific help.
	Northern Ireland, despite her small size, still contributes 20% of the reserve forces to the Army. Recruitment spans the Catholic and Protestant divide, which is to be encouraged. It is good to see things moving forward. The Northern Ireland cadets, for instance, have had the largest number of recruits for years. In some sections of the cadet force, the ratio of Protestants to Roman Catholics is 50:50. That will give the House some idea of how far things have advanced as a result of the Northern Ireland political process, and of the positive effect of what we have been trying to do.

Lady Hermon: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene, especially as I was not able to be present at the beginning of this important debate. Will he take this opportunity to put on record the deep appreciation that is felt by many people throughout Northern Ireland for the Royal British Legion, and for the many other charities that have supported the armed forces throughout the worst of the times and the troubles, and continue to do so in what are now, thank goodness, peaceful times in Northern Ireland?

Jim Shannon: I certainly subscribe to that sentiment. We have been extremely lucky to benefit from the work of the many organisations, including the SAAFA group, Combat Stress and Help the Heroes, which have done so much for us.
	The Ulster Defence Regiment and the Home Service battalions of the Royal Irish Regiment operate a care service that could perhaps be extended to those serving in the British armed forces. I also ask the Government to consider using buildings that were used during Operation Banner for the benefit of ex-service personnel. I think that we should do more than just ask the House to accept the words in the motion.
	Let me end by saying that, to me, “We will remember them” is not merely a phrase; it is a promise. We should not wait any longer to demonstrate that ex-service personnel in Northern Ireland are in our remembrance—today in the House, and tomorrow, as we begin to implement the changes that are so desperately needed.

Marcus Jones: I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for his brevity, which has enabled me to speak in the debate.
	I welcome the motion. I have been in the House for three years, and this is one of the first Opposition days that I can remember on which I have been unable to object to the cut of the jib of those on the Opposition Front Bench. What does disappoint me is that there is no military wives choir or band for me to say a great deal about.
	I shall speak first about the importance of Armed Forces day, then about charities that support our armed forces and veterans, and finally about the penultimate section of the motion, which refers to the role of those in public life and to what more can be done by central and local government to help veterans.
	I think that 10 or 15 years ago there was a great deal of apathy in the country about the work of our armed forces, but over the past decade or so that has given way to a return of great enthusiasm for them. One of the few positive consequences of our engagements in Afghanistan and Iraq is the fact that the armed forces are now treated far better, and are seen in a far better light. Armed Forces day has become a vital way of enabling the country to show its appreciation and support for our forces. I shall be in Nuneaton on Saturday to support Armed Forces day. I look forward to that, and to the launch of the Defence Discount Service’s privilege card, which will also take place on Saturday. That is a small thing for most people in the armed forces community, but it provides another way for us to show our support for them.
	Let me now say something about the charities that support our armed forces. I want to focus on the work of Veterans Contact Point, a wonderful organisation that is based in Nuneaton town hall. It has three notable features. First, it is entirely run by volunteers, who are former members of the forces themselves and who understand the issues that confront service personnel when they arrive on civvy street. Many of those who run the organisation have also experienced problems after leaving the services, and are therefore well placed to provide our veterans with advice, guidance, signposting and other forms of practical support and help.
	The success of Veterans Contact Point lies in the help that it gives to the cohort of people with whom it engages most: those who find it difficult to reintegrate when they leave the armed forces and return to civvy street. Many of these people have a problem with dependency on drugs or drink, or have been in trouble with the police or have been in contact with the probation service, and might have been in prison. The project is led by Len Hardy, the Warwickshire Probation Trust veterans champion, who has done a magnificent job. It has been extremely effective in providing a holistic service for our veterans in Coventry and Warwickshire, because it has brought together elements of Government and our charities. I want to mention in particular the important input of the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Families Association, the local Nuneaton and Bedworth branch of the Royal British Legion, the Scraping the Barrel charity, ABF The Soldiers Charity, which was known as the Army Benevolent Fund, and the European Social Fund. I would like a Minister to come and observe this excellent service in action, because it provides a huge amount of community good and a huge amount of support for those coming out of our armed forces.
	My third point is about how people in public service, local authorities and the Government support our veterans community. Veterans Contact Point has had a very mixed response from local government and as a result may have to move venues. I do not want to be political, but we need to make sure, across the piece in local and national Government, that we do all we can to support such organisations. I have had some discussions with Veterans Contact Point about the community covenant grant scheme, and we need to address the way in which it works, as my understanding is that some of the bureaucracy has caused an issue in relation to accessing grants.
	I endorse the sentiment of the motion. I will support Armed Forces day on Saturday, and I look forward to seeing a fantastic response to our armed forces, veterans and their families across the country.

Martin Horwood: I thank the Opposition for this opportunity to pay tribute to the courage and commitment of all our armed forces. My constituency has a strong military heritage, contributing many winners of the Victoria Cross—far more than would be expected from a town of its size. I have had many gallant predecessors myself, too, including the first, and first Liberal, MP for Cheltenham, the hon. Craven Berkeley, and Douglas Dodds-Parker, who was a Conservative MP in the post-war period and who served in the Special Operations Executive in the second world war with great distinction. I should also mention his successor,
	Charles Irving, who was deemed insufficiently robust for front-line service and famously bayoneted a retired lieutenant-general in the backside while on service in the Home Guard.
	More distinguished service was seen by many Gloucestershire soldiers, airmen and sailors in two world wars, in Iraq and Afghanistan, in Korea and in earlier conflicts. The Gloucestershire Regiment is now part of 1 Rifles, whose soldiers still proudly wear the back badge won by the “Glosters” at the battle of Alexandria in 1801, when they showed almost inhuman courage by turning back to back to face simultaneous French attacks from front and rear. They showed equally heroic courage at the battle of Imjin river in Korea in 1951, tragically losing 620 men in that one battle. Gloucestershire’s military tradition is also still represented by the Gloucestershire Hussars. As part of the Territorial Army, it counts Tobruk and Gallipoli among its battle honours. I hope such local connections are not lost in the future reserves development.
	We also have the Allied Rapid Reaction Corps in Gloucestershire, an astonishing outfit of 16 nationalities capable of deploying for NATO at five days’ notice. It is, perhaps, a model of the kind of new flexible, fleet military that we need to create for the 21st century.
	We also have strong connections to the defence industry, started by George Dowty in the 1930s and now represented by companies such as GE Aviation and Messier-Bugatti-Dowty, and companies like the Omega Resource Group, started by former soldier Jon Penhale. I am very grateful to the Minister of State, Ministry of Defence, the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) for meeting me to discuss Omega’s approach to providing employment and training opportunities for soldiers designed by former soldiers and recognising the unique challenges that they face.
	Not only are the Government doing the right thing to develop an armed forces fit for the 21st century, with much greater emphasis on better integrated reserves, but they are right to have tackled some of the difficult challenges of the Ministry of Defence budget and defence procurement. Those are difficult things to face up to, but they are necessary steps that have to be taken if we are to make an armed forces that are not only fit for the 21st century in military terms, but financially sustainable.
	I am happy to endorse Armed Forces day today—

Mr Speaker: Order. We thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution but we are now going to have a Front-Bench speech from Mr Kevan Jones.

Kevan Jones: First, I thank the 13 Members for their contributions to a good debate that has highlighted the respect that Members of the House have for our armed forces and the importance that they give to their role.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Meg Munn) talked about the contribution of Sheffield and her constituents to the armed forces. She described how the local community covenant was not just a piece of paper and discussed the work that was happening practically on the ground with local people and businesses. I know that Sheffield has a proud history, because when I was Veterans Minister, I had the privilege of meeting
	300 women of steel. These 300 women helped to keep the Sheffield steel industry going during the second world war and they are held in high esteem in that city.
	The hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) —a very old friend of mine from our days on the Defence Committee—talked about the contribution of his constituency to the British Army. May I join in his comments about the tremendous contribution that Aldershot makes to the British armed forces? He also highlights the important role of defence industries across the UK. We could not equip our armed forces and carry out the operations we ask them to do without the support of those industries. He also congratulated the previous Labour Government on Veterans day and the formation of Armed Forces day. I am not sure that he will agree that he will also want to thank Lord Davies of Stamford, who was the architect of Veterans day in his report. The hon. Gentleman will also wish to thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North East (Mr Ainsworth), who was also instrumental in developing Armed Forces day.
	The hon. Gentleman said that, as a Conservative, he did not get elected to cut members of the armed forces and then digressed into what we usually hear by blaming the previous Labour Government for the deficit. We must recall that he was an Opposition Front-Bench spokesman and they supported our spending commitments right up to 2008. May I gently remind him that he was also calling for a larger Army, a larger Air Force and a larger Navy?
	My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Tom Blenkinsop) rightly raised the case of his constituent Alison, and I pay tribute to him for how tenaciously he has championed her interests. She finds herself in a terrible situation, where she proudly has two sons in the armed forces but is losing out because of the Government’s bedroom tax. I know that the Minister has sympathy with this case and I share his frustration that the decisions of other Departments sometimes have an unintended impact on the members of the armed forces. However, this situation does need urgent clarity, because Alison and many others will rightly feel let down by the fact that she thought the Government had done a U-turn on this but they clearly have not. This should be pursued as a matter of urgency. When I challenged the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Steve Webb) on it, he was not sympathetic at all, but I am sure that the Minister in this debate will raise these issues with him.
	The hon. Member for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell) reminded us, as if we needed any reminding, that 16 Air Assault Brigade is based in Colchester and gave us the first reference to the military wives choir.
	He also referred to Army bands. As the Minister for the Armed Forces rightly pointed out, the person who was arguing for fewer military horses was the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who is a Liberal Democrat. Then again, the hon. Member for Colchester is one of those individuals who, as Liberal Democrats quite easily can, protests against the cuts in the size of the Army when he is part of the Government who are making them. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman grudgingly agreed at the end of his speech that the previous Labour Government did a lot to improve housing in his constituency. I tried to
	unpick the shambles of the Annington Homes contract, but it was not possible, and he is right that it was a very bad deal for the taxpayer.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin) mentioned the contribution his constituency makes to the armed forces, as well as the RMLY and the fantastic job it is doing to recruit reservists to the reserve forces. I congratulate the 47 individuals who have joined.
	The hon. Member for Gosport (Caroline Dinenage) helped me out for the next pub quiz I attend by giving the meaning and background of the phrase “up the creek without a paddle”—I am sure that many Defence Ministers must think on occasion that they are. That information will obviously be of great use. She also made an important point about family life. We sometimes forget that families are important through the support they give to members of the armed forces.
	I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) for the work she does on the RAF for the all-party group. She is a great advocate for the RAF in this House. I also congratulate her for organising tonight’s Bomber Command dinner, which I will be attending. I looking forward to meeting many of the veterans she spoke about. My hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt) mentioned the armed forces ombudsman. I, too, pay tribute to Susan Atkins, the service complaints commissioner for the armed forces. I remember when the post was brought in following a good report from the Defence Committee on the tragic events at Deepcut, and the resistance from service chiefs, who thought that it would be the end of the world if we had a service complaints commissioner. It clearly has not been. The hon. Lady said that the armed forces had “nothing to fear” from an ombudsman. I reiterate that and totally agree with her points. I hope that the Government will take that on board.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) mentioned the Army’s links to the armed forces parliamentary scheme and the proud history of his constituency’s links with the Duke of Lancaster’s Regiment and the Fusiliers. He rightly did not forget the casualties that have taken place in Afghanistan and other conflicts and raised questions about the strategy the Government are pursuing on the Afghan draw-down.
	The hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron), who has a great deal of experience in the reserve forces, raised the legitimate concerns of many people, even in the reserves, about the Government’s gamble in reducing the regular Army before putting the detailed plans in place to recruit reservists. It is a little like putting the cart before the horse and I agree with him that that is a high-risk strategy. Recruitment levels will be difficult to achieve and without proper protection in the workplace, many people will not be willing to volunteer for the armed forces. We will see how the plans are rolled out, but it would have been useful to see the White Paper before the Government embarked on the strategy, rather than halfway through the process.
	The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) mentioned the contribution of the people of Northern Ireland to the armed forces. I pay tribute to them.
	When I was a Minister I visited Northern Ireland on a number of occasions and witnessed the tremendous dedication of veterans, their proud history and the contribution that members from both communities in Northern Ireland are making today to our armed forces.
	The hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) mentioned the Veterans Contact Point in his constituency. He made the important point that many of these people are volunteers. I take this opportunity to put on record my thanks and those of the House to the army of volunteers who work tirelessly within all charities throughout the country to support our veterans and members of the armed forces.
	The hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) raised the proud history of Gloucestershire and the joint rapid reaction force. I am glad that it is bedded in. It was set up on my watch in the MOD and it was a complex move, but I think it was a successful one. He also rightly paid tribute to the defence companies, both large and small. There are many large defence companies in the UK, but we should not forget the SMEs and small companies, which make a huge contribution.
	I thank all for their contributions today. Let us hope that the events of this weekend will not only reinforce the public’s support for members of our armed forces but give us an opportunity to remember those who have lost their lives in recent conflicts and those who have been wounded both physically and mentally in the service of their country.

Andrew Robathan: I am pretty sure that I do not have to, but I will anyway, declare that I am in receipt of a service pension so I have an interest in this debate.
	I will not be able to respond to all the points that have been raised today, but I will try. I know that hon. Members on both sides of the House will not be hesitant in sending me letters if they want a particular point answered to which I have not been able to respond.
	Today’s debate has been remarkably consensual, which I welcome. It has demonstrated that Members of the House care passionately about supporting our service personnel. We are fortunate to be able to rely on the men and women of our armed forces, for whom as Minister for the Armed Forces I have some responsibility. It is a much over-used word, but it is a real privilege to have that responsibility and to work with members of our armed forces. I know that the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) has done that, as well as others in the House.
	The dedication of our armed forces to maintaining our security and protecting our interests and values means that Britain is able to act as a force for good in the world, defending our national interests and our international obligations. We are all proud of what they do.
	I was in Scotland this morning visiting one of our deterrent submarines and the submarine service on the Clyde, and it was extremely impressive and very professional. I know that other hon. Members will have seen that as well. The role of the armed forces both in the deterrent and elsewhere is difficult and sometimes dangerous. I pay tribute to their bravery and professionalism, which represent the very best qualities our nation has to offer.
	We owe them and the families who support them an enormous debt of gratitude. That is why the Government are committed to supporting the success of Armed Forces day, which was indeed introduced by the previous Government. It allows the public to express their appreciation of those who have served their country.
	I was going to say that the right hon. Member for East Ranfrewshire, sorry Renfrewshire (Mr Murphy)—

Jim Murphy: It is not that hard to say.

Andrew Robathan: Sorry, it is for me. I was going to say that he was better at running a marathon than—but then he was very consensual, so I won’t. I pay tribute to his time for the marathon. As he knows, I set him a target, which he beat very easily. Well done.
	I am afraid that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Meg Munn) will have to wait for the White Paper for a decision about moving 38 Signal Regiment from Sheffield. I would like to have heard more discussion from my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) about the Supreme Court judgment last week on extending human rights to the battlefield. It is a subject on which Members from both sides of the House may wish to comment. I know that we will be looking carefully at that judgment, and that we have some concerns.
	I was sorry to hear about the constituent of the hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Tom Blenkinsop). I understand that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Defence, the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) wrote to him only yesterday and we do not believe that this is a general problem. Leaving aside the armed forces and reservists, I thought that the Opposition had accepted that we need to make serious savings, as we have been doing over the past three years, for all the reasons that he understands. On this day the newspapers have published the letter from the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne) which says that there is no money.

Tom Blenkinsop: The Government’s policy clearly states that armed forces personnel families are supposed to be exempt but, after three months, it is clear that they are not and that councils throughout the country are interpreting the policy in such a way that only reservists count, not permanent members of the armed forces.

Andrew Robathan: As I said, my right hon. Friend the Minister has written to the hon. Gentleman. They should have further discussions, because my right hon. Friend knows the details, but I fear that I do not.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell) made a wide-ranging speech in which he stood up for Colly, as soldiers used to call Colchester, although I think that they were referring particularly to the military corrective training centre. He also talked about bands. From the Government’s point of view, bands are an integral part of the Army, and indeed of the Royal Marines and the Royal Air Force. Anyone who has ever marched to a band knows how stirring that is. I remember Academy Sergeant Major Huggins at the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst saying, “If the hairs on the back of your neck don’t prickle when you hear a military band, you are in the wrong business.” On the Ministry of
	Defence police, I saw them yesterday at Coulport. They do a good job there and I pay tribute to them on my hon. Friend’s behalf.
	The hon. Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin) talked about the Royal Mercian and Lancastrian Yeomanry. I fear that I cannot pre-empt the White Paper, but I certainly would not want any damage to be done to the recruitment of reservists in Dudley.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Caroline Dinenage) talked about the proud and close relationship between the Navy and her constituency. Indeed, my undistinguished service career began at the admiralty interview board in Gosport. I thought that “Up something or other creek without a paddle” was from Falstaff, but my excellent officials tell me that I am wrong, although I am still going to check it all the same.
	The hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) does excellent work with the RAF all-party group. It will astonish many to know that I got on so well with Bomber Command that I was made an honorary member of it, so I might just drop in for a quick chat later. My right hon. Friend the Minister tells me that she will certainly receive a reply to her specific question before the summer recess.
	My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt) talked about the service complaints commissioner. I am afraid that she will have to discuss that further with my right hon. Friend, but I understand that we are looking at the matter closely.
	I was glad to hear the support of the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) for the armed forces. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) and I have not dissimilar backgrounds. No Defence Minister wishes to see cuts to the armed forces or defence spending, but I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for coherently explaining the continued need to maintain defence spending throughout the current review. I think that he has done a pretty good job, and the story has been in the newspapers. On my hon. and gallant Friend’s point about reservists, he will also have to wait for the White Paper.
	I pay tribute to the hon. and gallant Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for his service in the Ulster Defence Regiment during difficult times in the Province. He stood up for Northern Ireland, and he was absolutely right that Northern Ireland makes a great contribution—indeed, a disproportionate contribution—to our armed forces.
	I share the respect of my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) for service charities, which do fantastic work. We will ensure that someone gets up to see them, but that might be my right hon. Friend the Minister of State. My advice to my hon. Friend is that a good start would be to set up a military wives’ choir, and I am sure that military husbands and the non-military could be involved.
	The hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) was rather cut off in full flow, but I agree with him about the ARRC. I shall shortly be visiting it and its commander, James Bucknall, who is also colonel of the Coldstream Guards, as I am sure that that hon. Members know. On hearing about Charles Irving, I feared that the lieutenant-general whom he speared with a bayonet was British, rather than German. The hon. Member for
	North Durham and I have sparred across the Dispatch Box for more than three years, but his speech was the most consensual that I have ever heard him make.
	I am extremely proud of our armed forces, as I know that we all are, but I am also proud of the work that the Government have done to help to improve the support that we give them. In a consensual manner, let me say that we have built somewhat on work that was done previously. We owe our armed forces our very best efforts, because that is what they give us day in, day out, wherever they are stationed and whatever the conditions. As my right hon. Friend the Minister said in his opening speech, the first duty of Government is the defence of the realm, and we must never forget, and we must thank our armed forces for, the service that they provide in fulfilling that duty on behalf of everyone in the House and the country.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House celebrates and commemorates the contribution of Her Majesty’s Armed Forces and their families, in particular those currently serving overseas; recognises the important introduction of Armed Forces Day in 2006 and urges the nation to come together and champion the Services’ achievements throughout the decades; pays tribute to the UK’s Forces, their families and the charities who do so much to support them; recognises the enormous contribution of the staff who support the UK’s Forces from within Government and the workforces in industry who supply them with world-class equipment; urges all those in public life to seek additional ways to support the Armed Forces Covenant; urges the Government, local authorities, business and charities to deliver the best possible post-service support; and considers the principles of the Armed Forces Covenant essential to uphold, through public policy, the provision of welfare and frontline support.

Business without Debate

Delegated Legislation

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Extradition

That the draft Extradition Act 2003 (Amendment to Designations) Order 2013, which was laid before this House on 25 April, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.—(Mr Evennett.)
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Infrastructure Planning

That the draft Highways and Railway (Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project) Order 2013, which was laid before this House on 16 May, be approved.—(Mr Evennett.)
	Question agreed to.

CROSS-BORDER HEALTH CARE (ENGLAND AND WALES)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mr Evennett.)

Jesse Norman: I start by thanking Mr Speaker for kindly granting this debate on a topic of great importance to many of my constituents and to many others living in English counties on the border with Wales.
	I am grateful to two of my colleagues, my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies) and the Minister for Immigration, my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), who have both worked with enormous diligence on behalf of constituents of theirs who have been similarly affected. I pay tribute to my constituent the indefatigable Patti Fender for bringing this issue to my attention, and to Action4Our Care, the action group which has pressed the matter so hard in Gloucestershire.
	The basic problem can be simply stated. There are more than 20,000 NHS patients who are resident in England, yet registered with a Welsh general practitioner. Of these, some 3,500 are resident in my county of Herefordshire. Many of these people, like my constituents in the village of Welsh Newton—a Welsh name, but an English village—have no choice but to register with a Welsh GP because no English practice covers their location.
	These people live in England, but they are being denied access to hospital services in England. That is grossly unfair, especially as for many, if not all, of them Hereford hospital is the closest and the best place to be treated. The situation also has the damaging knock-on effect of depriving Hereford hospital of revenue from patients who are being treated in Wales. The result is a double whammy: the patients cannot receive the health care that they want and need, and Hereford hospital, already undermined by the deeply iniquitous NHS funding formula, must suffer an unexpected additional financial burden. This burden is already becoming evident. Outpatient treatments for patients living in England but registered with a Welsh GP fell by 10% to 11% in March, April and May this year compared with the same period in 2012, and the hospital expects them to fall further in the months to come.

Stephen Mosley: Is my hon. Friend aware of the situation in Chester, where the Countess of Chester hospital serves large numbers of people who live in north Wales? One third of the people presenting at accident and emergency at the Countess of Chester live in north Wales. There is no funding available for them so people in Cheshire are losing out. Does my hon. Friend think that is fair?

Jesse Norman: It is interesting to have the parallel case, and I thank my hon. Friend for bringing it to the attention of the House.
	Let us look at the issues in more detail. The relevant NHS regulations state that legal responsibility for these patients remains with the relevant clinical commissioning groups in England, but that local health boards in Wales take day-to-day responsibility for their care. The English and Welsh NHS take their guidance from the protocol
	for cross-border health care services, the latest version of which was agreed by Welsh and English Ministers in April this year. However, it appears that the protocol does not give full effect to the law. Specifically, point 14 of the current protocol implies that patients from England who are treated in Wales are to be seen and treated within the maximum waiting time targets of the NHS in Wales, which are of course rather different from those of the NHS in England. Why does this matter? It matters for three particular reasons.
	First, as we have seen, these South Herefordshire patients struggle to get referred to the hospital of their choice. The Welsh Assembly Government Minister for Health and Social Services has openly stated that choice is not the basis of the health system in Wales.

Jim Shannon: The hon. Gentleman will be well aware of the land border between the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. There is co-operation, although it is not full blooded, between the health service in Northern Ireland and the health service in the Republic. Perhaps the Minister should look at that to see how it can work for the situation on the border between England and Wales.

Jesse Norman: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. There is co-operation at the moment between England and Wales, but I think that it would absolutely benefit from further examination of the situation he describes between Northern Ireland and Eire.
	The fact that the Welsh Assembly Government Minister for Health and Social Services does not believe that choice is the basis of the health system in Wales means that my constituents do not have the choice of health care, hospitals or consultants that is their proper legal right.
	Secondly, the Welsh NHS’s performance in meeting its own waiting time targets continues to deteriorate. In England the waiting time target is 18 weeks, but in Wales it is 26 weeks, and that is regularly missed. Some patients are not even treated within 36 weeks. For example, some 4% of patients are not treated within 36 weeks at Cardiff and Vale hospital, according to recent Welsh Government statistics for April this year.
	Thirdly, the current set-up is giving rise to serious clinical concerns. Earlier this year, in evidence to the Silk commission on devolution in Wales, the Royal College of Surgeons, the British Medical Association and the Royal College of Nursing made the following submission:
	“The Panel... acknowledged that increasing policy divergence between health services in Wales and England was a challenge, especially in regards to cross-border services. The Panel added that there was a need to strengthen commissioning arrangements to improve current delays for processing individual cases... It was also agreed that it made sense for some specialist facilities to be shared by both England and Wales; and to work together to deliver economies of scale and efficiency savings, including cross border sharing of procurement and use of high-tech equipment.”
	However, as I have mentioned, that ban on hospital access for those patients is not merely grossly unfair to them but places further financial pressure on Hereford hospital.

Bill Wiggin: My hon. Friend and neighbour is making an important and powerful speech and should be congratulated on securing
	the debate. Does he agree that when one has a national border next to one’s county, it should be treated like a coastline, because it is not the Minister’s responsibility to control the health service in Wales? But if we do not have proper funding we will suffer as a result of not only our rurality but our sparsity, and once again people living in the marches will be at a disadvantage. We have the Barnett formula, but should we not have something similar for people on the Welsh border?

Jesse Norman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and neighbour for that kind intervention. I share his view that the situation needs to be addressed, and it needs to be addressed in the spirit of amity and co-operation between the two sides.
	In 2009-10 I commissioned an independent study of the funding of public services in Herefordshire relative to other suitable comparators across the country. I was only a parliamentary candidate at the time and such a study had never before been undertaken, but it seemed obvious to me that Herefordshire suffered from a serious shortfall in public funding and I was determined to get to the bottom of the matter. The results were astounding—even frightening. The study found that Herefordshire had been underfunded by no less than £175 million over the previous five years across all public services. In health care, the underfunding was £44 million, or roughly £9 million a year. It is no coincidence, I suggest, that Hereford hospital is currently running a deficit of almost exactly that amount. It is that deficit that is being worsened by the denial of choice to cross-border patients in my constituency and elsewhere.
	Why did that funding shortfall occur? The reason is that the NHS funding formula is systematically skewed against areas that are highly rural and have a large population of older people, and systematically favours urban areas with younger populations. The formula does not recognise the relatively high cost of delivering services in sparsely populated areas, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin) indicated, and it does not adequately recognise the special costs imposed by caring for older people—particularly the over-85s, the very oldest in our society. Research by Professor Sheena Asthana at the university of Plymouth indicates that the areas of greatest health care need are those with the highest proportion of over-75s. However, the current funding formula is focused on deprivation rather than on need for health care. That means that less funding is available to treat older people with chronic diseases.
	Nationally, 17% of people are aged 65 or over. In Herefordshire, the figure is already 22% and pensioners will make up a third of the population by 2030. In 2010-11, Herefordshire had the highest proportion of over-75s in the west midlands, and the most patients per 100,000 on the cancer register. It also had the lowest cancer spend per cancer patient per year—a little over £5,000—and was in the lower half of the per capita allocations.
	By contrast, the Heart of Birmingham PCT had the lowest proportion of over-75s in the region, and the fewest patients per 100,000 on the cancer register. However, the spend per cancer patient per year there was not £5,000 but more than £10,000—nearly double that in Herefordshire. Thus the effect of the funding formula is that Heart of Birmingham has twice as much
	funding per cancer patient as Herefordshire, for a much lower incidence of cancer. That is not merely unfair; it is a monstrous injustice.
	I conclude by asking the Minister three questions. First, will her Department amend the cross-border protocol and reintroduce patient choice for English residents registered with GPs in Wales? Secondly, will she acknowledge the strain that the protocol places on hospitals such as Hereford hospital? Thirdly, will she press her Department to make the case to NHS England for a fairer funding settlement, which will give older people—not merely in Herefordshire, but up and down the land—the funding for cancer and for other health care that they so richly deserve?

Anna Soubry: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) on securing this debate. He has raised a number of important topics—notably, the difficulties of people resident in England who are registered with a local GP whose service is deemed to be in Wales, even though the surgery may be in England. I am fully aware of my hon. Friend’s keen interest in local health matters affecting his constituents and his tireless work to support Hereford hospital. The whole House will agree that we would all expect good quality patient care, regardless of which part of the country we live in.
	As my hon. Friend knows, I am very sympathetic to the concerns he has raised about English residents who are unable to access English hospital care because they are technically registered with a Welsh GP practice—even when, as I said, for a small number of patients, that GP surgery is physically situated in England.
	I am told by my officials that the NHS services that any patient can access, and their NHS rights, are determined by their GP’s country of registration. As we have heard, that is formulated through protocol between NHS England and the Welsh Assembly; it means that, legally, a person has to be registered with an English GP practice to access English NHS services.
	I am very concerned that despite an English border patient’s right to register with a GP practice on either side of the border, that is not always possible in practice. I recognise that, in rural communities, patients often do not feel a choice is available, given that the most accessible practice is a Welsh one. I also recognise that many people are registered with a local GP in England but the main practice is over the border in Wales. Those people may not want to change their GP practice. Why indeed should they? We could understand why they might, because in Wales people unfortunately do not get some of the excellent access to services that we enjoy in England. I am very concerned about this. I am told by NHS England that it has asked its legal advisers to review their earlier advice on the protocol signed between it and the Welsh Government with reference to the specific concerns that Ministers—that is, me—and the Welsh Secretary have raised.

Lady Hermon: It is very kind of the Minister to take an intervention at this stage. Will she kindly confirm that when she invites her officials to
	look at this issue they will take up the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and look at the valuable lessons that have been learned in Northern Ireland about the useful co-operation across a land frontier with the Republic of Ireland and a key, integral part of the United Kingdom—Northern Ireland?

Anna Soubry: I am grateful for that intervention and for the wise words of the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who, as ever, brings a great depth of experience to these matters. Yes, we will certainly take that on board.
	All this came about because of a meeting between me and my officials, the Welsh Secretary and my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper). As a result of that meeting, I have asked NHS England to work locally with GP practices in the border counties to review their practice boundaries with the aim of providing additional choice of GPs to those who do not currently have it. I am keen that all English patients are able to access an English GP if they wish or that they can register with a Welsh GP if that is their choice and they are aware of the impact of that decision. I have also asked NHS England to review the protocol as it currently stands.
	I have asked the Welsh Government to review their policy on out-of-area treatments to consider an exception for English residents—specifically, that GPs operating from branch surgeries in England should be exempt from the requirement to seek prior approval for English resident patients to be referred to hospitals in England. These are all matters of concern not only to constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire but to others. We have heard about that from my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Stephen Mosley) and my hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin), and of course I know of the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean.
	I am informed that since the meeting with the Welsh Secretary and my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean, NHS England has had several further meetings with colleagues in the Welsh Government and local health boards based in Wales to discuss these concerns so that they can be addressed. There have been constructive discussions with Aneurin Bevan local health board, which has confirmed that it will undertake a review of the application of its policy on out-of-area treatment. I understand from NHS England that work will continue on this review over the next few months, and I will of course keep everybody fully informed and up to date on any progress.

Bill Wiggin: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Anna Soubry: Of course, but quickly.

Bill Wiggin: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. I am really heartened by the positive things she has said, and I congratulate her on the work she has done. Will she also look at the impact of cross-border patient numbers on hospitals, which also badly affects us in Herefordshire?

Anna Soubry: Indeed. I will come to the effect on Hereford hospital, but I am more than happy to write to my hon. Friend about his specific point. The usual rules apply: if there are questions that I have not answered I will of course write to any hon. Member.
	We have asked the Welsh Government to request that other local health boards along the border in Wales should similarly review the application of their own policies for out-of-area treatment affecting patients in the same circumstances. In many of those areas patient numbers are much smaller, but that does not matter; these are important issues for these individuals.
	In the light of the further legal advice that NHS England is seeking, I am advised that it will review the protocol with the Welsh Government in view of my concerns and those of other hon. Members, the updated legal advice, the outcome of the local health boards’ reviews of the application of their policies on out-of-area treatment, and feedback that we have received from local NHS bodies on the operation of the protocol. The review will be undertaken in the autumn following completion of the reviews by the local health boards.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire is concerned that the policy of the Welsh Government that those who are registered with a Welsh GP must use Welsh NHS services will have a direct impact on the viability of Hereford hospital. I share his concern, but I understand that a number of other factors affect the viability of the hospital and the Wye Valley NHS Trust.
	I was a bit concerned when I read the next part of my brief, because it has been worded in an interesting way by my very able officials. It states that those factors include
	“the drop in the numbers of young people locally leading to a lack of activity in maternity services”.
	I am not sure what “lack of activity” young people have been guilty of. I think that what is meant is that there are not as many young people in the area, because there is undoubtedly a higher proportion of retired elderly people in the population. It is obvious that if there are fewer young people, people are less likely to be having babies and are therefore less likely to use maternity services. I am sure that activity remains at a high level.
	As my hon. Friend is aware, Wye Valley NHS Trust published a strategic outline case in March this year, setting out the options for its future form to create a clinically sustainable model for local people. I have been advised by the NHS Trust Development Authority that it has been working with the trust to develop a full business case, which it expects to receive for consideration by the end of this month. Again, I make it very clear that I am more than happy to revisit this issue with my hon. Friend and others following the outcome of that process.

Jesse Norman: Wye Valley NHS Trust has informed me that the policy has cost it between £1 million and £2 million so far. Given that it is running a deficit of £8 million to £10 million, that is a significant sum. The work that is being done pre-supposes the current funding formula. In a way, it therefore pre-supposes the point at question, which is whether the formula is fair. As I have submitted, it clearly is not.

Anna Soubry: I do not doubt for one moment the veracity of what my hon. Friend has told me about what he, in turn, has been told. That is a substantial amount of money and it would go a long way to explaining part of the deficit. These are terribly important matters.
	The funding formula has been raised yet again. The argument advanced by many Members on both sides of the House is that the formula does not take account of the relatively high cost of delivering services in rural areas or reflect the fact that many rural areas such as Herefordshire have relatively older populations. I have had a number of conversations with hon. Members who make exactly the same complaint as my hon. Friend.
	I am reliably informed—this point is important—that allocations to individual clinical commissioning groups, which are made up of the GPs and other clinicians who now commission services locally, and the formula that is used to decide what those allocations should be, are the responsibility of NHS England. I am not seeking to pass the buck, but it does bear that responsibility. In making those allocations, NHS England relies on advice from the Advisory Committee on Resource Allocation. ACRA provides advice on the share of available resources provided to each CCG to support equal access for equal need, as specified in the mandate given by the Secretary of State to NHS England.
	Therefore, NHS England does not set income for CCGs on an equal cost-per-head basis across the country. Instead, allocations follow an assessment of the expected need for health services in an area, and funds are distributed in line with that, meaning that areas with a high health need should receive more money per head. The calculation is based on the age of the populations, relative morbidity and unavoidable variation in cost. The objective is to ensure a consistent supply of health services across the country. The greater the health need, the more money is received because the more health services are needed.
	I know that some hon. Members just do not accept that that is the reality with the allocations to their CCGs and, in effect, to their constituencies. NHS England plans to review the funding formula for 2014-15 and the following years better to reflect the needs of local communities and enable the best outcomes for local people. Perhaps there is hope in that. Obviously, I must say quickly that I cannot make any promises.
	If anybody would like to intervene, we do have the time. Hon. Members often want to make a point, but do not feel that they can make a speech.

Roger Williams: I thank the Minister for her kindness and I am sorry that I was not here at the start of the contribution from the hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman). Hereford hospital is key in delivering medical services to people in my constituency in Wales. If it had not been for the co-operation of my predecessor, Richard Livsey, the rebuilding of Hereford hospital might not have taken place, because it needs patients from the east of Wales too.

Anna Soubry: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. My officials will listen to the debate and read it in Hansard. All the points that have been made about Hereford hospital—equally important points could be raised by others about the effect on other hospitals—must be considered, because they are important. It would not be right or fair if hospitals felt that they were suffering as a result of a system that is basically not fair through no fault of their own.

Jesse Norman: We have a little time, so I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way again. Will she ask her officials to look more closely at the functioning of ACRA? The formula under which we are labouring was set up in 2002. There is a clear case to be made that, contrary to its desire, it is not delivering funding to the areas of greatest need, but to areas defined by a deprivation formula. The truth is that morbidity and age go together, not deprivation and morbidity.

Anna Soubry: I might not share my hon. Friend’s final remarks, but we know that NHS England, which is in charge of distributing funds to CCGs, is considering the formula. It will no doubt bear in mind the argument made by him and others who believe that ACRA’s formulation is not delivering in the fair way that we all agree was intended.
	In conclusion, I am pleased that NHS England has responded to my concerns, and the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire and others, most notably my hon. Friend the Member
	for Forest of Dean, with whom I had a long meeting. As a result, NHS England is doing what we had hoped it would. I am encouraged by the dialogue that has been taking place between NHS England, the Welsh Government and local health boards in Wales, and I hope to see further rapid progress. We must not let anybody drag their heels. I look forward to being able to update my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire, and others who represent border communities, in the autumn. I undertake to do that once NHS England has finished its review. I once again congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate on this important issue. While it might not affect a huge number of people, it is a very important issue for them and they feel that there is an injustice. It behoves all of us to ensure that we eradicate any injustice.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.